ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2026
Evaluation of 3D-CRT vs. VMAT for radiotherapy of whole breast with simultaneous integrated boost.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medical physics in the Nordic countries: collaboration and future challenges - report from the Nordic Association for Clinical Physics 2026 Symposium.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
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
background and purposeThis study evaluates volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) as a potential alternative to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for whole-breast radiotherapy (RT) with simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB). Patient/material and methods: Ten left-sided breast cancer patients previously treated in our institution (whole breast with SIB) were selected. Clinical plans were generated using tangential field-in-field 3D-CRT technique. VMAT plans were retrospectively created. Dosimetric evaluation was performed according to our clinical guidelines. A robustness evaluation of the 3D-CRT and VMAT plans against simulated anatomical and setup uncertainties was also performed. Differences between techniques were analysed using a two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test with a significance level of 0.05.
resultsBoth the 3D-CRT and VMAT plans fulfilled the clinical requirements for target volumes and organs at risk. VMAT plans showed a median increase in heart mean dose of 10.8%, compared to 3D-CRT (p < 0.05). Heart maximum dose was reduced by up to 56.7% with VMAT (p < 0.05), offering a clinically meaningful advantage. For the ipsilateral lung, no significant difference in mean dose was observed, V16Gy was significantly lower and V4Gy was significantly increased with VMAT. VMAT plans improved dose conformity to the boost planning target volume, (p < 0.05). Median monitor units (MU) values of 371 MU (359-466 MU) vs 927 MU (752-1018 MU) were obtained with 3D-CRT and VMAT. VMAT remained robust to simulated uncertainties for whole-breast but showed greater sensitivity in the boost volume.
interpretationVMAT was a feasible alternative to 3D-CRT for whole-breast RT with SIB, improving boost dose-conformity and reducing maximum heart dose. However, VMAT requires careful dosimetric evaluation and robustness assessment.
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.