ArticleJournal of radiation research2025
A robust planning approach for respiratory motion in accelerated partial breast irradiation using volumetric modulated arc therapy.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is an alternative treatment for early-stage breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the virtual bolus (VB) method and robust planning against respiratory motion in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-APBI. VMAT plans were generated with 30 Gy in 5 fractions for 16 patients. Four treatment plans were developed and compared: a standard optimization (SO) plan without robust methods, a pseudo-skin flash strategy using a 5 mm VB (with densities of 0.4 and 1.0 g/cm3, VB04 and VB10), and a robust optimization (RO) plan to minimize penalties in worst-case scenarios. The isocenter was shifted 1-5 mm in each translational direction in robust analysis, and perturbed dose calculations were performed. All dose constraints for the target in SO and VB plans were within acceptable limits, but the dose evaluation volume V95% in the RO plan was lower than in other plans (P < 0.05). The clinical target volume V95% of the RO plan was significantly higher than in VB04 and VB10 (P < 0.05). The RO plan showed the best performance for organs at risk, followed by SO and VB plans, which resulted in higher doses. The RO plan exhibited the smallest change (±2%) in dose distribution due to respiratory motion. By contrast, the SO plan lacked robustness owing to absence of sufficient fluence in the air surrounding the planning target volume outside of the skin surface. The RO plan offers superior target coverage, maximum dose, and robustness compared to SO and VB methods.
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.