ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Development of automated whole breast 3D planning with tangential fields.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Development of automated whole breast 3D planning with tangential fields.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives/purposesWhole breast 3D treatment planning with tangential fields often requires multiple manual adjustments, leading to inefficiency and variability. This study presents and evaluates an in-house developed automated script designed to improve planning efficiency and consistency for breast radiotherapy using tangential fields. MATERIALS/
methods19 breast cancer patients from an IRB-approved study were selected. The automated script was developed to generate beam segments through a three-step process, (1) verification of field setup, and generation of breast planning target volume (PTV), (2) duplication of the clinical plan with open tangents and (3) automatic generation of beam segments to reduce hotspot iteratively. Plans produced by the automated script (AS) were compared to the manually optimized (MO) clinical plans using eight evaluation metrics: V16Gy of the ipsilateral lung, mean heart dose, V90%, V95% (dose coverage), V105% (hotspot) of PTV, number of segments, MU (monitor unit) weighted segment area, and total MUs. A statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsFour of the eight metrics showed statistical differences. For MO and AS plans, the average ± SD of ipsilateral lung 16 Gy was 15.05% ± 3.27% vs. 15.10% ± 3.26% (p = 0.04) while the mean heart dose was 0.87 Gy ± 0.52 Gy, vs. 0.87 Gy ± 0.53 Gy (p = 0.68). With regards to homogeneity and coverage, the PTV V105% were 2.0% ± 5.0% and 3.7% ± 6.4% (p = 0.03) while the PTV V90% were 98.8% ± 1.5% and 99.1% ± 0.9% (p = 0.14), V95% were 92.0% ± 4.4% and 92.4% ± 3.2% (p = 0.63) respectively. The number of segments and MU weighted segment areas were 7.3 ± 1.3 and 10.9 ± 1.9 (p < 0.001); 268.2 ± 96.6 cm
conclusionThe automated script successfully generated high-quality tangential breast plans that met all clinical constraints. It significantly improved consistency while maintaining clinical acceptability, demonstrating potential for broader use in automated 3D planning.
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.