ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2026
Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk exposure in multicatheter high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy vs. VMAT-based APBI for real patient treatment plans.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To dosimetrically compare multicatheter interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy (MIBT) with two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques, i.e., continuous (cVMAT) and tangential (tVMAT), for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI), specifically focusing on organs at risk (OARs) exposure. Material and methods: Treatment plans of 50 early-stage breast cancer patients treated with interstitial multicatheter HDR brachytherapy (MIBT) were analyzed. Using identical CT datasets with catheters in situ and standardized contours, MIBT, cVMAT, and tVMAT plans were generated for each patient. For VMAT plans, planning target volume (PTV) was created by adding a 5 mm margin to clinical target volume (CTV). A uniform prescription dose of 32 Gy in 8 fractions was applied across all techniques. Dosimetric parameters were evaluated for target volumes, heart (including tumor quadrant sub-group analysis for left-sided cases), ipsilateral lung, skin, ribs, and non-target breast. Results: VMAT safety margins increased target volume by 129% vs. MIBT. MIBT achieved superior sparing of non-target breast (median V Conclusions: APBI technique selection should be individualized based on anatomy and intramammary tumor bed location. MIBT optimizes sparing of healthy breast tissue, skin, and chest wall across all locations. Conversely, tVMAT provides a cardiac advantage mainly for left-sided upper/ outer quadrant tumors, and effectively minimizes low-dose lung exposure compared with continuous arc arrangements.
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.