ArticlePloS one2026
Dosimetric comparison study of ultrahypofractionated photon versus proton treatment plans in post breast-conserving surgery breast cancer.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing utilization of ultrahypofractionation radiotherapy plans in whole breast radiotherapy. This study presents a comparative analysis of ultrahypofractionation using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in treatment planning for patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS). MATERIALS AND
methodsCT datasets of twenty patients undergoing BCS, with ten on the left side and ten on the right side, were retrospectively replanned using both VMAT and IMPT techniques. The study included four scenarios: left/right breast only and left/right breast with regional nodes. A total dose of 26 Gy(RBE) was prescribed in 5 fractions. The CTV (clinical target volume) was optimized for IMPT, incorporating a 3 mm setup uncertainty and a 3.5% range uncertainty. The planning target volume (PTV) was used for VMAT optimization and evaluation for both techniques. Dose to the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) between IMPT and VMAT was analyzed.
resultsThe PTV-D95, along with the V10 and V20 of the ipsilateral lungs, was comparable between VMAT and IMPT plans. The ipsilateral lung Dmean and V5 were significantly lower for the IMPT methods for breast-only radiotherapy and for the right breast with regional nodes. IMPT plans showed significantly reduced Dmean, V5, and V10 doses to the contralateral lung, as well as Dmean and V5 doses to the heart in all subgroups. The Dmean of the heart was less than 1 Gy for the left-sided and less than 0.5 Gy for the right-sided subgroup in IMPT plans. However, the IMPT plans showed a significantly higher Dmax for the skin surface in all subgroups, as well as for the esophagus in the left breast with regional nodes subgroup.
conclusionIMPT plans significantly reduced radiation exposure to most surrounding OARs compared to VMAT. Clinical outcomes are needed to confirm the potential for reduced late toxicities. However, this benefit was accompanied by an increased skin surface dose and, in specific cases, a higher esophageal dose.
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.