ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026
Automated fluence optimization in breast cancer radiotherapy: balancing dosimetric quality, organ-at-risk sparing, and workflow efficiency.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of EZFluence (EZF), an automated fluence optimization tool, in planning breast cancer radiotherapy by comparing its dosimetric performance with that of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Specifically, we aimed to determine whether EZF can enhance target coverage, minimize dose to organs at risk, and improve planning efficiency.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 35 patients who received whole-breast irradiation for left-sided breast cancer. Treatment plans were generated using 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT, and EZF-based forward-planned field-in-field techniques. Dosimetric parameters, including planning target volume coverage, cardiac exposure, left anterior descending artery dose, lung dose, and contralateral tissue dose, were analyzed. Planning efficiency was assessed by comparing the monitor units and planning time.
resultsEZF demonstrated significantly superior dose homogeneity and a lower delivered maximum dose compared with 3D-CRT and IMRT. Although VMAT provided the highest planning target volume V95, EZF maintained comparable target coverage with significantly reduced high-dose regions. Additionally, EZF achieved a lower mean heart dose compared with 3D-CRT and IMRT. While VMAT offered superior high-dose cardiac sparing, EZF minimized low-dose cardiac spread and significantly reduced the mean lung dose and low-dose volumes of the left lung compared with IMRT and VMAT. The mean doses to the contralateral breast with 3D-CRT and EZF were less than 1 Gy, whereas those when using IMRT and VMAT exceeded 1 Gy. Regarding efficiency, EZF required fewer monitor units than did IMRT and VMAT, and its automated planning process reduced inter-planner variability.
conclusionEZF demonstrated significant potential as an innovative approach in breast cancer radiotherapy, providing comparable target coverage with enhanced sparing of organs at risk and without unnecessary contralateral dose. Its automated fluence optimization enhanced planning efficiency by simplifying planning and reducing variability. These findings support the integration of EZF into routine clinical practice to optimize radiotherapy delivery.
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.