ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Evaluating the efficacy of biological versus physical cost functions with constrained mode for inverse plan optimization of head and neck cancer.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare and evaluate the potential benefits of using single DV-based, multiple DV-based physical cost function, and biological-based cost functions for organs at risk (OARs) sparing in IMRT as well as VMAT plans of head and neck cancer. Forty head and neck cancer patients treated with inverse plan optimization techniques were retrospectively enrolled for this study. Three different treatment plans were optimized by single DV-based, multiple DV-based physical cost functions, and biological-based cost functions on MONACO 6.1® TPS. All three optimized plans were normalized to deliver the same prescribed target dose. All 120 optimized plans were analyzed using dose evaluation parameters. For IMRT plans, the biological cost functions (BCF) were superior to both DV-based optimizations when it came to the mean dose of parallel organs. For VMAT plans, multiple DV-based physical cost function optimization resulted in a lower mean dose of parallel organs when compared with other two optimization. The biological cost function significantly reduced the mean dose of parallel organs, for which multiple DV-based cost functions were not used. In both IMRT and VMAT plans, the DV-based physical cost function significantly reduced the maximum dose of serial organs, with the exception of the mandible. Biological-based optimization made it more likely that the parallel OARs would be spared in IMRT plans, while multiple DV-based optimization made it more likely that the parallel OARs would be spared in VMAT plans. Both DV-based optimization in IMRT and VMAT plans effectively spared the maximum dose of the serial organ.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40658294What 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.