ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2013
Assessing the role of volumetric-modulated arc therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2013. 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.
- Clinical application of real-time tumor-tracking for stereotactic volumetric modulated arc therapy for liver tumors.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential clinical role of VMAT compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) for liver irradiation. Four-dimensional CT scans of 24patients with unresectable HCC were included and divided into two groups: (1) adjacent group (n = 11), with planning target volumes overlapping or within 1 cm adjacent to the alimentary tract; (2) nonadjacent group (n = 13), in which the normal liver itself was the dose-limiting structure. Target coverage, organs-at-risk (OARs) doses, delivery parameters, and treatment accuracy were evaluated. Superior target coverage, conformity, and homogeneity were achieved with VMAT compared with 3D CRT. In the adjacent group, VMAT provided superior sparing of serial functioning OARs including the stomach, small intestine, and spinal cord. In the nonadjacent group, VMAT provided inferior sparing of most OARs including the liver, stomach, and small intestine. For the whole group, the effective treatment time was 2.1 ± 0.3 min for 3D CRT and 3.1 ± 0.2 min for VMAT. For liver lesions adjacent to the alimentary tract, this study indicates that VMAT should be selected due to the plan quality, delivery efficiency, and superior sparing of stomach and small intestine. However, for liver lesions away from the alimentary tract, VMAT is not superior to 3D CRT for normal tissue protection.
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.