ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Why is Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Not Considered the Standard of Care for Locoregional Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer Patients?
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 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.
- Automated fluence optimization in breast cancer radiotherapy: balancing dosimetric quality, organ-at-risk sparing, and workflow efficiency.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Breast cancer radiotherapy and the risk of lung injury: Advances and perspectives.Advances in radiotherapy & nuclear medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We quantify dosimetric differences between 3-dimensional (3D) planning and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in breast cancer patients requiring comprehensive regional nodal irradiation (CRNI). Target volume dose, prescription isodose conformality to target volumes, plan hotspots, normal tissue dose-volume metrics, and back and shoulder dose were compared for VMAT and 3D plans of 50 patients. Metrics used to compare VMAT plans with 3D plans included the percentage of primary clinical target volumes (CTVs) receiving 98% of a prescription dose of 5000 cGy, CTV dose hotspots, the extra treatment volume (ETV), and the portion of the patient's body receiving 90% of the CTV prescription dose (excluding the primary target volume). Superior values for these metrics were found for VMAT plans when compared to 3D plans. The mean percentage of the target volume receiving 98% of the prescription dose of 3D plans was 95.4% versus 98.9% among VMAT plans (
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.