ArticleBMC cancer2026
Dosimetric comparison of IMRT and VMAT with deep inspiration breath hold or free breathing for right-sided whole breast irradiation.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare dosimetric outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), with and without deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH), in patients with right-sided early-stage breast cancer receiving whole-breast irradiation (WBI) without nodal targets.
methodsThirty-two patients with node-negative right breast cancer underwent computed tomography simulation in free-breathing (FB) and DIBH. Four plans per patient were generated: IMRT-FB, IMRT-DIBH, VMAT-FB, and VMAT-DIBH. All plans delivered 40 Gy in 15 fractions to the whole breast. Dosimetric comparisons of target and organ-at-risk (OAR) structures were performed using paired analyses and linear mixed-effects models. A Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold of p < 0.001 was applied.
resultsVMAT significantly improved target coverage and dose homogeneity compared to IMRT (median PTV V95%: 99.5% vs. 93.4% under FB and 99.5% vs. 92.2% under DIBH, both p < 0.001), but resulted in greater low-dose exposure to the left breast (mean dose, V4, and D0.03 cc) and left lung (V5). VMAT also increased right lung doses (V5 and V16, and mean dose) and liver V5 under FB. DIBH significantly reduced various heart, lung, and liver dose parameters without compromising target coverage. Mean heart dose was lowest with IMRT (0.4 Gy). Liver D2cc (median 2.7 Gy IMRT-DIBH, 3.0 Gy VMAT-DIBH, both p < 0.001 vs. FB) and V5 (median 0% IMRT-DIBH, 0.1% VMAT-DIBH, both p < 0.001 vs. FB) were significantly reduced with DIBH. DIBH had limited effect on reducing right lung V5 but improved higher-dose sparing (V16, V20, and mean dose). Mixed-effects modelling confirmed that VMAT and DIBH independently affected dose metrics. The average beam-on time was longest for VMAT-DIBH (4.6 min) and shortest for IMRT-FB (3.4 min).
conclusionDIBH improves OAR sparing for right-sided WBI without compromising target coverage, although absolute OAR doses remained low across all techniques. VMAT improves PTV coverage but increases low-dose exposure to normal tissues; however, these findings are specific to the institutional planning approach and delivery technology implemented. The combination of VMAT with DIBH should be individualised based on anatomy and clinical resources. These findings support the optional use of DIBH in right-sided WBI where dosimetric optimisation is prioritised.
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.