ArticleOncology letters2014
Dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated and volumetric arc radiation therapy for gastric cancer.
Article in Oncology letters, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimal tumor coverage with different beam energies by IMRT, VMAT and TOMO: Effects on patients with proximal gastric cancer.Medicine · 2020Article
- Automated VMAT planning for postoperative adjuvant treatment of advanced gastric cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Adjuvant chemoradiation for gastric carcinoma: State of the art and perspectives.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2018Review
- Volumetric-modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for large volume retroperitoneal sarcomas: A comparative analysis of dosimetric and treatment delivery parameters.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018Article
- Dosimetric comparison of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy for postoperative gastric cancer patients.Japanese journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Article
- Chemoradiation for gastric cancer: controversies, updates and novel techniques.The British journal of radiology · 2015Review
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 the present study was to compare radiotherapy treatment plans for gastric cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and single/double-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (SA/DA-VMAT) delivery techniques. A total of 29 postoperative gastric cancer patients were enrolled in this study and each patient was scheduled 5-field IMRT (5F-IMRT), 7-field IMRT (7F-IMRT), SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT techniques. Dose-volume histogram statistics, conformal index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MUs) were analyzed to compare treatment plans. The DA-VMAT plans exceeded the other three methods in terms of planning tumor volume dose and organs at risk in the kidneys, but not in the liver. DA-VMAT exhibited a better mean CI (0.87±0.03) and HI (0.10±0.01) than the other techniques. In addition, for the kidneys the dose sparing (V13, V18 and mean kidney dose) was improved by DA-VMAT plans. Similar results were observed for MUs. However, 5F-IMRT showed a marginal advantage in V30 and mean dose in normal liver when compared with DA-VMAT. The results of this study suggest that DA-VMAT provides improved tumor coverage when compared with 5F-IMRT, 7F-IMRT and SA-VMAT; however, DA-VMAT exhibits no advantage in liver protection when compared with 5F-IMRT. Further studies are required to establish differences in treatment outcomes among the four technologies.
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.