ArticlePloS one2013
Critical structure sparing in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for central lung lesions: helical tomotherapy vs. volumetric modulated arc therapy.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for ultra-central lung lesions: a comparative dosimetric analysis.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Hypo-fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy for lung malignancies by means of helical tomotherapy: report of feasibility by a single-center experience.La Radiologia medica · 2018Article
- Comparison of outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy delivered with three different technologies to the lung.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2018Article
- A treatment-planning comparison of three beam arrangement strategies for stereotactic body radiation therapy for centrally located lung tumors using volumetric-modulated arc therapy.Journal of radiation research · 2016Article
- Feasibility and efficacy of helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy for stage III non-small cell lung cancer in comparison with conventionally fractionated 3D-CRT.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
- Dosimetric evaluation of compensator intensity modulation-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2015Article
- Review
- The radiation techniques of tomotherapy & intensity-modulated radiation therapy applied to lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2015Review
- Patterns of CT lung injury and toxicity after stereotactic radiotherapy delivered with helical tomotherapy in early stage medically inoperable NSCLC.The British journal of radiology · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHelical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are both advanced techniques of delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Here, we conduct a study to compare HT and partial-arc VMAT in their ability to spare organs at risk (OARs) when stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is delivered to treat centrally located early stage non-small-cell lung cancer or lung metastases.
methods12 patients with centrally located lung lesions were randomly chosen. HT, 2 & 8 arc (Smart Arc, Pinnacle v9.0) plans were generated to deliver 70 Gy in 10 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Target and OAR dose parameters were compared. Each technique's ability to meet dose constraints was further investigated.
resultsHT and VMAT plans generated essentially equivalent PTV coverage and dose conformality indices, while a trend for improved dose homogeneity by increasing from 2 to 8 arcs was observed with VMAT. Increasing the number of arcs with VMAT also led to some improvement in OAR sparing. After normalizing to OAR dose constraints, HT was found to be superior to 2 or 8-arc VMAT for optimal OAR sparing (meeting all the dose constraints) (p = 0.0004). All dose constraints were met in HT plans. Increasing from 2 to 8 arcs could not help achieve optimal OAR sparing for 4 patients. 2/4 of them had 3 immediately adjacent structures.
conclusionHT appears to be superior to VMAT in OAR sparing mainly in cases which require conformal dose avoidance of multiple immediately adjacent OARs. For such cases, increasing the number of arcs in VMAT cannot significantly improve OAR sparing.
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.