Trial reportStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2015
Clinical and dosimetric evaluation of RapidArc versus standard sliding window IMRT in the treatment of head and neck cancer.
Trial report in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy in head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy.Radiation oncology journal · 2020Article
- RapidArc vs Conventional IMRT for Head and Neck Cancer Irradiation: Is Faster Necessary Better?Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Article
- Multi-isocentric 4π volumetric-modulated arc therapy approach for head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2017Article
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy for treatment of solid tumors: current insights.OncoTargets and therapy · 2017Review
- Unilateral and bilateral neck SIB for head and neck cancer patients : Intensity-modulated proton therapy, tomotherapy, and RapidArc.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2016Article
- Toxicity profile and early clinical outcome for advanced head and neck cancer patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost and volumetric modulated arc therapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Article
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
backgroundSeveral planning studies have already proven the substantial dosimetric advantages of RapidArc (RA) over standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy. We retrospectively compared RapidArc and standard sliding window IMRT (swIMRT) in locally advanced head and neck cancer, looking both at dosimetrics as well as toxicity and outcome.
methodsCT datasets of 78 patients treated with swIMRT and 79 patients treated with RA were included. To compare the resulting dose distributions, the dose-volume parameters were evaluated for the planning target volumes (PTVs), clinical target volumes (CTVs), and organs at risk (OARs), and the number of MU were calculated. Acute toxicity was assessed by the Common Toxicity Criteria version 3.0.
resultsPTV coverage with the 95% isodose was slightly better for RA. Dose distribution has proven to be significantly more homogenous with RA and led to a reduction of 62% in MU with better OAR sparing. As for toxicity, more grade 3 mucositis and dysphagia was observed for swIMRT, though we observed more grade 3 dermatitis for RA.
conclusionIn our retrospective analysis, RA had better target coverage and better sparing of the OAR. Overall, the grade of acute toxicity was lower for RA than for swIMRT for the same types of tumor locations, except for the grade of dermatitis.
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.