ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2012
The impact of direct aperture optimization on plan quality and efficiency in complex head and neck IMRT.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric evaluation of simplified intensity-modulated radiation therapy for thoracic tumors.Medicine · 2025Article
- mARC vs. IMRT radiotherapy of the prostate with flat and flattening-filter-free beam energies.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional step&shoot intensity modulated radio therapy (IMRT) approaches potentially lead to treatment plans with high numbers of segments and monitor units (MU) and, therefore, could be time consuming at the linear accelerator. Direct optimization methods are able to reduce the complexity without degrading the quality of the plan. The aim of this study is the evaluation of different IMRT approaches at standardized conditions for head and neck tumors.
methodFor 27 patients with carcinomas in the head and neck region a planning study with a 2-step-IMRT system (KonRad), a direct optimization system (Panther DAO) and a mixture of both approaches (MasterPlan DSS) was created. In order to avoid different prescription doses for boost volumes a simple standardization was realized. The dose was downscaled to 50 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) which included the primary tumor as well as the bilateral lymphatic drainage (cervical and supraclavicular). Dose restrictions for the organs at risk (OAR) were downscaled to this prescription from high dose concepts up to 72 Gy. Those limits were defined as planning objectives while reaching definable PTV coverage with a standardized field setup. The parameters were evaluated from the corresponding dose volume histogram (DVH). Special attention was paid to the efficiency of the method, measured by means of calculated MU and required segments. Statistical tests of significance were applied to quantify the differences between the evaluated systems.
resultsPTV coverage for all systems in terms of V90% and V95% fell short of the requested 100% and 95%, respectively, but were still acceptable (range: 98.7% to 99.1% and 94.2% to 94.7%). Overall for OAR sparing and the burden of healthy tissue with low doses no technique was superior for all evaluated parameters. Differences were found for the number of segments where the direct optimization systems generated less segments. Lowest average numbers of MU were 308 by Panther DAO calculated for 2 Gy fractions. Based on these findings the treatment time at the linear accelerator is the lowest for Panther DAO.
conclusionsAll IMRT approaches implemented in the different treatment planning systems (TPS) generated clinically acceptable and comparable plans. No superior system in terms of PTV coverage and OAR sparing was found. Major differences in efficiency of the method in terms of calculated MU and treatment times were found.
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.