ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Dosimetric comparison of sequential planning (SP) versus bias dose planning (BDP) in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based breast radiotherapy boost.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim/purposeThis study aims to evaluate and compare the dosimetric parameters of breast cancer radiotherapy plans using Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), specifically contrasting the use of the bias dose planning (BDP) feature with sequential planning (SP) without bias in the Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of twenty left breast carcinoma patients were randomly selected for this study, which followed a two-phase treatment regimen. In Phase 1, a dose of 40 Gy was delivered using the Elekta Versa HD, and the treatment plans were generated with 6 MV beams in the Monaco TPS using the VMAT technique. Phase 2 involved a sequential boost, delivering an additional 12.5 Gy, also using VMAT. For each patient, two treatment plans were created for Phase 2: one utilizing the BDP feature and the other SP, allowing for a direct dosimetric comparison of target volume, Organ at risk (OAR), normal tissue exposures, conformity index (CI) and Homogeneity index (HI).
resultsBoth the BDP and SP achieved comparable target volume coverage, with similar conformity and homogeneity indices. However, BDP demonstrated better sparing of OARs. Specifically, BDP significantly reduced the mean doses to the left lung (1496.4 ± 47.9 cGy vs. 1594 ± 189.3 cGy), right lung (465.9 ± 109.1 cGy vs. 591.6 ± 251.4 cGy), and heart (770.1 ± 232.0 cGy vs. 970.2 ± 65.5 cGy) compared to SP (all p < 0.05). Additionally, volume-based metrics, including V20 and V5Gy, consistently favored BDP. There was no substantial difference in the absolute volumes (cc) of the Body-PTV structure receiving 10% to 90% of the prescription dose between the BDP and SP plans, and the differences were not statistically significant (P ≥ 0.05). These findings underscore the dosimetric advantage of BDP in minimizing radiation exposure to critical structures without compromising target coverage.
conclusionThe integration of the bias dose feature in VMAT-based breast cancer radiotherapy planning offers dosimetric advantages by improving sparing of critical organs without compromising target coverage or plan quality. This study highlights the importance of incorporating bias dose planning (BDP) in multiphase breast radiotherapy, especially when sequential boosts are required and supports its suitability for adoption in routine clinical practice.
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.