% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Zwicker:168307,
      author       = {F. Zwicker$^*$ and S. Hoefel and C. Kirchner and P. E.
                      Huber$^*$ and J. Debus$^*$ and M. Schempp},
      title        = {{H}ypofractionated {R}adiotherapy {W}ith
                      {S}imultaneous-integrated {B}oost {A}fter
                      {B}reast-conserving {S}urgery {C}ompared to {S}tandard
                      {B}oost-applications {U}sing {H}elical {T}omotherapy {W}ith
                      {T}omo{E}dge.},
      journal      = {Anticancer research},
      volume       = {41},
      number       = {4},
      issn         = {1791-7530},
      address      = {Attiki},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2021-00818},
      pages        = {1909 - 1920},
      year         = {2021},
      note         = {#EA:E055#},
      abstract     = {This comparative plan study examines a range of
                      boost-radiation methods in adjuvant radiotherapy of breast
                      cancer using helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy with
                      TomoEdge-technique. Impact of hypofractionated radiation
                      with simultaneous-integrated boost (SIB) and influence of
                      differing assumed α/β-values were examined.For 10 patients
                      with left-sided breast cancer each four helical IMRT-plans
                      with TomoEdge-technique were created: hypofractionated+SIB
                      (H-SIB) (42.4/54.4 Gy, 16 fractions), normofractionated+SIB
                      (N-SIB) (50.4/64.4 Gy, 28 fractions),
                      hypofractionated+sequential-boost (H-SB) (42.4 Gy/16
                      fractions+16 Gy/8 fractions), normofractionated+
                      sequential-boost (N-SB) (50.4 Gy/28 fractions+16 Gy/8
                      fractions). Equivalent doses (EQD2) to organs-at-risk (OAR)
                      and irradiated mammary-gland were analysed for different
                      assumed α/β-values.The mean EQD2 to OAR was significantly
                      lower using hypofractionated radiation-techniques. H-SIB and
                      H-SB were not significantly different. H-SIB and N-SIB
                      conformed significantly better to the breast planning-target
                      volume (PTV) and boost-volume (BV) than H-SB and N-SB.
                      Regarding BV, mean EQD2 was significantly higher for all
                      α/β-values investigated when using H-SIB and N-SIB.
                      Regarding PTV, there were no clinically relevant
                      differences.Relating to dosimetry, H-SIB is effective
                      compared to standard-boost-techniques.},
      keywords     = {Hypofractionated radiotherapy (Other) / IMRT (Other) / SIB
                      (Other) / TomoEdge (Other) / breast cancer (Other) / helical
                      tomotherapy (Other) / simultaneous integrated boost (Other)},
      cin          = {E055 / E050},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)E055-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:33813396},
      doi          = {10.21873/anticanres.14957},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/168307},
}