ArticleThe breast journal2026
Dosimetric Comparison of Five Radiotherapy Techniques in Left-Sided Breast Cancer Patients Following Breast-Conserving Surgery.
Article in The breast journal, 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.
- Dosimetric Comparison of Five Radiotherapy Techniques in Left-Sided Breast Cancer Patients Following Breast-Conserving Surgery.The breast journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare and evaluate the dosimetric characteristics of five radiotherapy techniques in left-sided breast cancer patients following breast-conserving surgery. The five radiotherapy techniques include three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (ff-IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), hybrid 3D-CRT with IMRT (CRT + IMRT), and hybrid 3D-CRT with VMAT (CRT + VMAT). PATIENTS AND
methodsTen patients with left-sided breast cancer who received postlumpectomy radiotherapy at the Department of Radiation Oncology, First Hospital of Qinhuangdao, between June 1, 2020, and June 1, 2021, were randomly enrolled in this study. For each patient, five distinct treatment plans were designed using the five aforementioned techniques (3D-CRT, ff-IMRT, VMAT, CRT + IMRT, and CRT + VMAT) based on identical computed tomography (CT) imaging datasets. Dosimetric parameters for the tumor target volume, organs at risk (OARs), and normal tissues (defined as body minus planning target volume [PTV], termed B-P) were analyzed and compared using dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and isodose distributions.
resultsThe CRT + VMAT technique demonstrated superior PTV dose coverage, conformity, and homogeneity compared to 3D-CRT, ff-IMRT, VMAT, and CRT + IMRT (p < 0.05). In contrast, the VMAT technique achieved significantly lower V
conclusionClinicians may tailor radiotherapy plans to individual patients based on the distinct dosimetric profiles of each technique. For patients requiring optimal PTV dose distribution, the CRT + VMAT technique is suggest. For enhanced cardiopulmonary protection (e.g., reduced lung/heart doses), ff-IMRT or CRT + IMRT may be prioritized. Additionally, 3D-CRT should be the first choice for patients needing rapid fractionated treatment due to its efficiency in minimizing MUs and treatment time.
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.