ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2011
Bilateral kidney preservation by volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) compared to conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in pancreatic and bile duct malignancies.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elective nodal irradiation with simultaneous integrated boost stereotactic body radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: Analyses of planning feasibility and geometrically driven DVH prediction model.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Trial
- Dosimetric and clinical toxicity comparison of critical organ preservation with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and RapidArc for the treatment of locally advanced cancer of the pancreatic head.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2016Article
- Feasibility of accelerated partial breast irradiation with volumetric-modulated arc therapy in elderly and frail patients.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Article
- Dosimetric impact of inter-observer variability for 3D conformal radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy: the rectal tumor target definition case.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2013Article
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy planning with duodenal sparing using volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a dosimetric analysis.Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans with conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plans in pancreatic and bile duct cancers, especially for bilateral kidney preservation.
methodsA dosimetric analysis was performed in 21 patients who had undergone radiotherapy for pancreatic or bile duct carcinoma at our institution. We compared 4-field 3D-CRT and 2 arcs RapidArc (RA) plans. The treatment plan was designed to deliver a dose of 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy daily fraction, 5 days a week. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV receiving more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (right and left kidneys, bowel tract, liver and healthy tissue) were compared. Monitor units and delivery treatment time were also reported.
resultsAll plans achieved objectives, with 95% of the PTV receiving ≥ 95% of the dose (D95% for 3D-CRT = 48.9 Gy and for RA = 48.6 Gy). RapidArc was shown to be superior to 3D-CRT in terms of organ at risk sparing except for contralateral kidney: for bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced by RA compared to 3D-CRT (16.7 vs 20.8 Gy, p = 0.0001). Similar result was observed for homolateral kidney (mean dose of 4.7 Gy for RA vs 12.6 Gy for 3D-CRT, p < 0.0001), but 3D-CRT significantly reduced controlateral kidney dose with a mean dose of 1.8 Gy vs 3.9 Gy, p < 0.0007. Compared to 3D-CRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly increased with RapidArc: 207 vs 589, (p < 0.0001) but the treatment time was not significantly different (2 and 2.66 minutes, p = ns).
conclusionRapidArc allows significant dose reduction, in particular for homolateral kidney and bowel, while maintaining target coverage. This would have a promising impact on reducing toxicities.
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.