ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Knowledge-based planning for intensity-modulated proton therapy of the breast and chest wall with regional lymph nodes: development, validation, and comparative evaluation of two models.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Knowledge-based planning (KBP) can improve efficiency and consistency in radiotherapy. In intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for breast cancer, particularly with regional lymph nodes, treatment planning remains complex. This study developed, validated, and compared two KBP models for IMPT of the breast and chest wall (CW) to enhance plan quality, reduce inter-planner variability, and streamline workflows. Materials and methods: Fifty patients (25 left-sided, 25 right-sided) previously treated with IMPT to the breast or CW including regional lymph nodes were used for model development. A combined model was trained on all patients, while side-specific models were developed separately for left- and right-sided treatments. Planning objectives were refined via iterative replanning of 20 training cases. For validation, 20 additional patients (10 left, 10 right) were evaluated using the respective models. Dosimetric metrics for target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were compared among model-generated and clinical plans using paired t-tests ( Results: All KBP-generated plans met clinical constraints. Both models achieved target coverage comparable to clinical plans. The combined model produced cooler hot spots in axillary, supraclavicular, and internal mammary nodes, with modest improvements in OAR sparing (heart, esophagus, trachea, thyroid). The side-specific model showed similar benefits, particularly for esophagus and thyroid sparing. Between models, side-specific plans had cooler hot spots, while the combined model offered slightly better OAR sparing. Physician review deemed all KBP plans clinically acceptable, preferring the KBP plan in 11 of 20 cases. Conclusions: KBP models can generate clinically acceptable IMPT plans for breast and CW with regional lymph nodes, achieving comparable target coverage to clinical plans with modest improvements in OAR sparing and hot spot reduction, supporting their potential to streamline treatment 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.