ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Planning Automation for Treatment Techniques Comparison and Robustness Analysis: Tangential Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Whole Breast Irradiation.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 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.
- Automated fluence optimization in breast cancer radiotherapy: balancing dosimetric quality, organ-at-risk sparing, and workflow efficiency.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluates the use of the mCycle automated planning system integrated into the Monaco Treatment Planning System for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in whole breast irradiation (WBI). The aim was to assess whether automation can standardize plan quality across a diverse patient cohort and compare dosimetric outcomes and robustness of the 2 techniques against setup errors and anatomical variations. Methods and Materials: A total of 65 patients with breast cancer who underwent postoperative WBI were selected for the study. Treatment plans were generated using mCycle, which employs multicriteria optimization with no manual intervention. Two automated planning techniques-IMRT and VMAT-were implemented and evaluated based on dosimetric outcomes, physician review, planning time, and plan robustness. The plan deliverability was verified through γ index and point dose measurements. Results: The mCycle system produced clinically acceptable plans for both IMRT and VMAT across all patient cohorts. VMAT showed superior target coverage (V95% = 97.9%) and better sparing of ipsilateral organs at risks (OARs), whereas IMRT demonstrated enhanced sparing of contralateral OARs and greater robustness to anatomical changes such as breast swelling. Planning times were reduced with VMAT because of complete automation. Plan deliverability was confirmed with high γ passing rates and acceptable point dose deviations. Conclusions: The use of mCycle in WBI planning successfully standardized plan quality and improved workflow efficiency. VMAT provided superior target coverage and ipsilateral OAR sparing but was more sensitive to anatomical changes. IMRT showed better contralateral OAR sparing and robustness. Both techniques are viable, with advantages depending on clinical scenarios.
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.