↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of breast sequential and simultaneous integrated boost using the biologically effective dose volume histogram (BEDVH)

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of breast sequential and simultaneous integrated boost using the biologically effective dose volume histogram (BEDVH)
Published in
Radiation Oncology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0590-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moamen M. O. M. Aly, Yasser Abo-Madyan, Lennart Jahnke, Frederik Wenz, Gerhard Glatting

Abstract

A method is presented to radiobiologically compare sequential (SEQ) and simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) breast radiotherapy. The method is based on identically prescribed biologically effective dose (iso-BED) which was achieved by different prescribed doses due to different fractionation schemes. It is performed by converting the calculated three-dimensional dose distribution to the corresponding BED distribution taking into consideration the different number of fractions for generic α/β ratios. A cumulative BED volume histogram (BEDVH) is then derived from the BED distribution and is compared for the two delivery schemes. Ten breast cancer patients (4 right-sided and 6 left-sided) were investigated. Two tangential intensity modulated whole breast beams with two other oblique (with different gantry angles) beams for the boost volume were used. The boost and the breast target volumes with either α/β = 10 or 3 Gy, and ipsi-lateral and contra-lateral lungs, heart, and contra-lateral breast as organs at risk (OARs) with α/β = 3 Gy were compared. Based on the BEDVH comparisons, the use of SIB reduced the biological breast mean dose by about 3 %, the ipsi-lateral lung and heart by about 10 %, and contra-lateral breast and lung by about 7 %. BED based comparisons should always be used in comparing plans that have different fraction sizes. SIB schemes are dosimetrically more advantageous than SEQ in breast target volume and OARs for equal prescribed BEDs for breast and boost.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 35%
Physics and Astronomy 6 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,920,379
of 25,997,855 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#355
of 2,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,008
of 408,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#5
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,997,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,120 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 408,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.