ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2026
Optimizing Radiotherapy for Left Breast Cancer: A Dosimetric Evaluation of Hypofractionated vs. Conventional VMAT with DIBH.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to determine whether the hypofractionated regimen offers dosimetric and radiobiological benefits compared to a conventional regimen delivered with deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) for left breast cancer patients following breast-conserving surgery using the VMAT technique. The primary objective was to assess whether the hypofractionated regimen provides equivalent target coverage and improved sparing of organs at risk (OARs).
methodsTwenty-four patients with histologically confirmed left-sided breast cancer, aged between 42 and 68 years, were included and divided into two fractionation protocols: 12 received a conventional regimen (50 Gy in 25 fractions), and 12 received a hypofractionated regimen (40 Gy in 15 fractions). Dosimetric parameters including clinical target volume (CTV) coverage, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), number of monitor units (MUs), and dose to critical structures were compared between the two regimens. The biological impact of the different fractionation schemes was assessed by calculating the biological effective dose (BED) and the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2). For statistical analysis, an independent-sample t-test was used (P < 0.05).
resultsBoth treatment approaches provided excellent target coverage, with no significant differences observed in CI. The conventional VMAT plan demonstrated better dose homogeneity (HI = 0.165 ± 0.038) compared to the hypofractionated plan (HI = 0.304 ± 0.090; p < 0.001). The hypofractionated approach showed a tendency for increased sparing of organs at risk, notably a 28.7% reduction in mean heart dose (6.24 Gy vs. 8.91 Gy), a lower EQD₂ (4.27 Gy vs. 5.99 Gy), and a significantly reduced dose to the contralateral lung (5.62 Gy vs. 7.32 Gy; p = 0.029). For the contralateral breast, no statistically significant difference was observed (p > 0.05).
conclusionResearch indicates that hypofractionated VMAT with DIBH offers potential dosimetric advantages over the conventional regimen, most notably by reducing radiation exposure to the heart and contralateral lung.
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.