ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Dosimetric analysis of half-field-based VMAT with the deep inspiration breath-hold technique for left breast cancer patients following breast-conserving surgery.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluations as well as technical aspects of left breast treatment employing DIBH with SGRT in radiotherapy with IMRT step and shoot, IMRT Dynamic MLC and VMAT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Compared the dosimetric characteristics of half-field-based VMAT and half-field-based IMRT for left breast cancer patients combined with deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) and free breathing (FB) techniques. Methods: Twenty-one left breast cancer patients were included. Each patient underwent DIBH and FB CT scans, IMRT and VMAT plans in half-field beam mode for both breathing techniques, resulting in four plans: FB-IMRT (F-IMRT), FB-VMAT (F-VMAT), DIBH-IMRT (D-IMRT) and DIBH-VMAT (D-VMAT). The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and the doses received at the heart, left anterior descending (LAD), left lung, right breast, and right lung, were compared among plans.The correlation between the difference in the volume of lung_L (ΔLVL) and the difference in the mean dose (ΔDmean) of lung_L under the DIBH and FB plans, the correlation between the difference in the heart-chest distance (ΔHCD) and the ΔDmean of the heart,LAD under the DIBH and FB plans. Results: The D-VMAT plan lower lung_L V5 than both the F-IMRT and F-VMAT plans ( Conclusion: the D-VMAT plan offered enhanced protection for OARs. The integration of the DIBH technique with half-field and VMAT technology in the D-VMAT plan offers a superior dose distribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.