ArticlePloS one2026
Dosimetric benefits of 1.5 T MR-guided radiotherapy in partial breast treatment.
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
This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric benefits of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) compared to computed tomography (CT)-guided RT for partial breast treatment. First, treatment plan quality was compared between MRgRT with step-and-shoot (S&S) IMRT and CT-guided RT with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Second, the dosimetric benefit of online adaptation in MRgRT was assessed by comparing the initial planned doses with daily MR-defined target geometry to those with planning CT-defined target geometry. Plan quality for MRgRT was comparable to, or slightly lower than, CT-guided RT. The V95% of the planning target volume (PTV) was lower by 1.72% and 1.94%, respectively, with a lower minimum dose and a higher maximum dose. For the OARs, the dosimetric parameters were generally similar, but for the skin, the Dmax, D0.5mL, and D1mL were slightly higher in MRgRT. Evaluation of the initial planned doses with the daily MR-based target definition resulted in a maximum deviation of 46% for the PTV V95%, demonstrating uncertainty in CT-based target definition. Although the MRgRT planning quality may be slightly compromised due to the S&S IMRT technique, the dosimetric benefits from online adaptation can be substantial when CT-based target definitions need to be modified based on daily MR imaging guidance.
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.