ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2010
Plan comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in anal canal cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric and Clinical Impact of Bone Marrow-sparing Radiation Therapy for Anal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Evolution of the Role of Radiotherapy for Anal Cancer.Cancers · 2021Review
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy: planning comparison with Dual-arc and Split-arc partial-field techniques.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Proton beam radiotherapy for anal and rectal cancers.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020Review
- Management of locally advanced anal canal carcinoma with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and concurrent chemotherapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2018Review
- Modern intensity-modulated radiotherapy with image guidance allows low toxicity rates and good local control in chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer patients.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2018Article
- Dosimetric advantages and clinical outcomes of simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for anal squamous cell carcinoma.Radiation oncology journal · 2017Article
- Concurrent chemoradiation with volumetric modulated Arc therapy of patients treated for anal cancer-acute toxicity and treatment outcome.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2017Article
- A novel arc geometry setting for pelvic radiotherapy with extensive nodal involvement.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2016Article
- Squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus: progress in radiotherapy treatment.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2016Review
- Article
- Chest wall desmoid tumours treated with definitive radiotherapy: a plan comparison of 3D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2016Article
- Twin machines validation for VMAT treatments using electronic portal-imaging device: a multicenter study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2016Article
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the combined modality treatment of anal cancer patients.The British journal of radiology · 2016Article
- Feasibility of accelerated partial breast irradiation with volumetric-modulated arc therapy in elderly and frail patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Article
- Analysis of motion of the rectum during preoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy for rectal cancer using cone-beam computed tomography.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Article
- Radiation therapy of anal canal cancer: from conformal therapy to volumetric modulated arc therapy.BMC cancer · 2014Article
- Neoadjuvant bevacizumab and chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: early outcome and technical impact on toxicity.World journal of surgical oncology · 2014Article
- A dosimetric analysis of volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy with jaw width restriction vs 7 field intensity-modulated radiotherapy for definitive treatment of cervical cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) plans with conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in anal canal cancers.
methodsTen patients with anal canal carcinoma previously treated with IMRT in our institution were selected for this study. For each patient, three plans were generated with the planning CT scan: one using a fixed beam IMRT, and two plans using the RapidArc technique: a single (RA1) and a double (RA2) modulated arc therapy. The treatment plan was designed to deliver in one process with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) a dose of 59.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV2) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy-daily fraction, 5 days a week. At the same time, the subclinical disease (PTV1) was planned to receive 49.5 Gy in a 1.5 Gy-daily fraction. Plans were normalized to 99% of the PTV2 that received 95% of the prescribed dose. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV1 will receive 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV will receive more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (bowel tract, bladder, iliac crests, femoral heads, genitalia/perineum, and healthy tissue) were compared for these different techniques. Monitor units (MU) and delivery treatment time were also reported.
resultsAll plans achieved fulfilled objectives. Both IMRT and RA2 resulted in superior coverage of PTV than RA1 that was slightly inferior for conformity and homogeneity (p < 0.05).Conformity index (CI95%) for the PTV2 was 1.15 ± 0.15 (RA2), 1.28 ± 0.22 (IMRT), and 1.79 ± 0.5 (RA1). Homogeneity (D5% - D95%) for PTV2 was 3.21 ± 1.16 Gy (RA2), 2.98 ± 0.7 Gy (IMRT), and 4.3 ± 1.3 Gy (RA1). RapidArc showed to be superior to IMRT in terms of organ at risk sparing. For bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced of 4 Gy by RA2 compared to IMRT. Similar trends were observed for bladder, femoral heads, and genitalia. The DVH of iliac crests and healthy tissue resulted in comparable sparing for the low doses (V10 and V20). Compared to IMRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly reduced with RapidArc (p = 0.0002) and the treatment time was reduced by a 6-fold extent.
conclusionFor patients suffering from anal canal cancer, RapidArc with 2 arcs was able to deliver equivalent treatment plan to IMRT in terms of PTV coverage. It provided a better organ at risk sparing and significant reductions of MU and treatment time per fraction.
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.