ArticleBiomedical engineering online2026
Dosimetric comparison of three different radiotherapy regimens for bilateral breast cancer.
Article in Biomedical engineering online, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the dosimetric characteristics of three radiotherapy techniques-VMAT, HT-5, and HT-2.5-in patients with bilateral breast cancer, and to serve as a reference for clinical plan optimization. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor 30 patients with bilateral breast cancer, radiotherapy plans were generated using Monaco-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and Tomo-based helical tomotherapy with 5 cm field width (HT-5) and 2.5 cm field width (HT-2.5). The prescription dose was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) of the planning target volume (PTV) were evaluated. For organs at risk, the V
resultsAll three techniques met clinical requirements for target coverage. VMAT achieved the highest CI (P < 0.05), with no significant difference in HI (P > 0.05) among the three techniques. HT-2.5 had a slightly lower Whole Lung-Dmean (10.59 ± 1.09 Gy) than VMAT (10.65 ± 0.69 Gy), but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Whole Lung-V5% was significantly lower with HT-5 (52.61 ± 4.90%) (P < 0.05) and HT-2.5 (50.23 ± 4.43%) (P < 0.05) compared to VMAT (57.24 ± 5.37%), while VMAT had significantly lower V
conclusionAll three techniques offer acceptable target coverage for bilateral breast cancer. VMAT provides superior target conformity, LAD sparing, and the shortest treatment time. HT-5 and HT-2.5 demonstrate advantages in cardiac protection, with lower heart Dmean and V
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.