The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Role of Biologically Effective Dose (BED) in Clinical Oncology
Open accessAbstract
There are many clinical situations in which radiobiological considerations can be usefully applied and all clinicians should be aware of the potential benefits of developing a quantitative radiobiological approach to their practice. The concept of biologically effective dose (BED) in particular is useful for quantifying treatment expectations, but clinical oncologists should recognize that careful interpretation of modelling results is required before clinical decisions can be made and that there is a lack of reliable human parameters for application in some situations. Correct use of the BED concept will, in more complex treatment situations, sometimes involve the use of multiple parameters and BED calculations. Examples include: 1. Where the dose per fraction is being altered and it is possible that normal tissue tolerance may be compromised, calculations should include two or more alpha/beta ratio values, some being less than 3 Gy, in order to estimate the 'worst case scenario'. 2. A single one-point BED calculation will not be representative of the biological effect throughout a large planning target volume where there are significant 'hot spots'. Multiple BED evaluations are then indicated. 3. Where there are combinations of radiotherapy treatments or phases of treatments, these can be quantitatively assessed by the addition of BEDs, although the volume of tissue is not inherently included in the BED calculation and any high-dose region needs to be separately assessed as in point 2. 4. Allowance for tumour clonogen repopulation during therapy is required for some tumour types. 5. Different histological classes of cancers require the use of different alpha/beta ratios. Where there is reasonable doubt regarding this parameter, a suitable range should be used. The principles involved are illustrated by worked examples. Attention to detail and the examination of ranges of possible results should offer a safer guide to alternative dose fractionation schedules, although the ultimate choice will be tempered by clinical circumstances.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease in Women after Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer
Darby, S. C., Ewertz, M., McGale, P., Bennet, A. M., Blom-Goldman, U., Brønnum, D., Correa, C., Cutter, D., Gagliardi, G., Gigante, B., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1209825 · Cited by 3,974
Bese, N. S., Hendry, J., & Jeremic, B. (2007) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.03.010 · Cited by 382
Gaspar, L. E., Mehta, M. P., Patchell, R. A., Burri, S. H., Robinson, P. D., Morris, R. E., Ammirati, M., Andrews, D. W., Asher, A. L., Cobbs, C. S., et al. (2010) · Journal of Neuro-Oncology · doi:10.1007/s11060-009-0060-9 · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, B., Dale, R. G., Deehan, C., Hopkins, K. I., & Morgan, D. A. L.
- Venue
- Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 71-81
- ISSN
- 0936-6555 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1995087795
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Role of Biologically Effective Dose (BED) in Clinical Oncology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s001740170083
- The paper
- Jones, B., Dale, R. G., Deehan, C., Hopkins, K. I., & Morgan, D. A. L. (2001). The Role of Biologically Effective Dose (BED) in Clinical Oncology. Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001740170083
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.