ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2012
A study of segment weight optimization with the CMS XiO step-and-shoot IMRT technique for prostate cancer.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The effect of beam shape on physical parameters of head and neck simultaneous-integrated boost intensity-modulated radiation therapy.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare IMRT optimization in the CMS XiO radiotherapy treatment planning system, with and without segment weight optimization. Twenty-one prostate cancer patients were selected for this study. All patients were initially planned with step-and-shoot IMRT (S-IMRT). A new plan was then created for each patient by applying the segment weight optimization tool (SWO-IMRT). Analysis was performed on the (SWO-IMRT) and (S-IMRT) plans by comparing the total number of segments, monitor units, rectal and bladder dose. The study showed a statistically significant reduction in the total number of segments (mean: 25.3%; range: 16.8%-31.1%) with SWO-IMRT as compared to S-IMRT (p < 0.0001). Similarly, a mean reduction of 3.8% (range: 0.4%-7.7%) in the total MU was observed with SWO-IMRT (p < 0.0001). The study showed an average rectal dose decrease of 13.7% (range: 7.9%-21.4%) with SWO-IMRT (p < 0.0001). We also observed a statistically significant reduction of 26.7% (range: 16.0%-41.4%; p < 0.0001) in the mean dose to the posterior one-third rectum and an overall reduction in mean bladder dose of 2.2% (range: 0.1%-6.1%) for SWO-IMRT (p < 0.0001). This study shows that the segment weight optimization method significantly reduces the total number of segments and the dose to the rectum for IMRT prostate cancer. It also resulted in fewer monitor units for most of the prostate cases observed in this study.
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.