Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25609741›Full record

Trial reportJournal of radiation research2015

Dose-volume histogram comparison between static 5-field IMRT with 18-MV X-rays and helical tomotherapy with 6-MV X-rays.

Akihiro Hayashi, Yuta Shibamoto, Yukiko Hattori, Takeshi Tamura, Michio Iwabuchi, Shinya Otsuka, Chikao Sugie, Takeshi Yanagi

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of radiation research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Akihiro HayashiDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate school of Medical Science, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan Department of Radiology, Okazaki City Hospital, 3-1 Aza-Goshoai, Koryuzi-cho, Okazaki, Aichi 444-8553, Japan hakihiro@gmail.com.
Yuta ShibamotoDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate school of Medical Science, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan.
Yukiko HattoriDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate school of Medical Science, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 462-8508, Japan.
Takeshi TamuraYokohama Cyberknife Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa 241-0014, Japan.
Michio IwabuchiDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate school of Medical Science, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan Yokohama Cyberknife Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa 241-0014, Japan.
Shinya OtsukaDepartment of Radiology, Okazaki City Hospital, 3-1 Aza-Goshoai, Koryuzi-cho, Okazaki, Aichi 444-8553, Japan.
Chikao SugieDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate school of Medical Science, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan.
Takeshi YanagiDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate school of Medical Science, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan.
Nagoya City University · JPCyber Laser (Japan) · JPNagoya Medical Center · JPOkazaki City Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We treated prostate cancer patients with static 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using linac 18-MV X-rays or tomotherapy with 6-MV X-rays. As X-ray energies differ, we hypothesized that 18-MV photon IMRT may be better for large patients and tomotherapy may be more suitable for small patients. Thus, we compared dose-volume parameters for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) in 59 patients with T1-3 N0M0 prostate cancer who had been treated using 5-field IMRT. For these same patients, tomotherapy plans were also prepared for comparison. In addition, plans of 18 patients who were actually treated with tomotherapy were analyzed. The evaluated parameters were homogeneity indicies and a conformity index for the PTVs, and D2 (dose received by 2% of the PTV in Gy), D98, Dmean and V10-70 Gy (%) for OARs. To evaluate differences by body size, patients with a known body mass index were grouped by that index ( <21; 21-25; and >25 kg/m(2)). For the PTV, all parameters were higher in the tomotherapy plans compared with the 5-field IMRT plans. For the rectum, V10 Gy and V60 Gy were higher, whereas V20 Gy and V30 Gy were lower in the tomotherapy plans. For the bladder, all parameters were higher in the tomotherapy plans. However, both plans were considered clinically acceptable. Similar trends were observed in 18 patients treated with tomotherapy. Obvious trends were not observed for body size. Tomotherapy provides equivalent dose distributions for PTVs and OARs compared with 18-MV 5-field IMRT. Tomotherapy could be used as a substitute for high-energy photon IMRT for prostate cancer regardless of body size.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, RadiationAgedAged, 80 and overData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgans at RiskProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, ConformalRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTreatment Outcomebody sizedose–volume histogramhelical tomotherapyIMRTprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID25609741
PMCPMC4380056
OpenAlexW2127332385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.