Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25623899›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2015

Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Zhongsu Feng, Hao Wu, Yibao Zhang, Yunjun Zhang, Jinsheng Cheng, Xu Su

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Zhongsu FengChinese Center for Medical Response to Radiation Emergency, National Institute for Radiological Protection, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 Xinkang Street, Deshengmenwai, Beijing, 100088, China. fengzsxulj@126.com.
Hao WuKey laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Radiotherapy, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fuchen Road, Haidian, Beijing, 100142, China. wuhao.bicr@gmail.com.
Yibao ZhangKey laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Radiotherapy, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, 52 Fuchen Road, Haidian, Beijing, 100142, China. ybzhang77@gmail.com.
Yunjun ZhangSchool of Foundational Education, Peking University Health Science Center, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian, Beijing, 100191, China. yjzhang@bjmu.edu.cn.
Jinsheng ChengChinese Center for Medical Response to Radiation Emergency, National Institute for Radiological Protection, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 Xinkang Street, Deshengmenwai, Beijing, 100088, China. chengjs3393@163.com.
Xu SuChinese Center for Medical Response to Radiation Emergency, National Institute for Radiological Protection, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 Xinkang Street, Deshengmenwai, Beijing, 100088, China. suxu@nirp.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the dosimetric differences between jaw tracking technique (JTT) and static jaw technique (SJT) in dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (d-IMRT) and assess the potential advantages of jaw tracking technique.

methodsTwo techniques, jaw tracking and static jaw, were used respectively to develop the d-IMRT plans for 28 cancer patients with various lesion sites: head and neck, lungs, esophageal, abdominal, prostate, rectal and cervical. The dose volume histograms (DVH) and selected dosimetric indexes for the whole body and for organs at risk (OARs) were compared. A two dimensional ionization chamber Array Seven29 (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) and OCTAVIUS Octagonal phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) were used to verify all the plans.

resultsFor all patients, the treatment plans using both techniques met the clinical requirements. The V5, V10, V20, V30, V40 (volumes receiving 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 Gy at least, respectively), mean dose (Dmean) for the whole body and V5, V10, V20, Dmean for lungs in the JTT d-IMRT plans were significantly less than the corresponding values of the SJT d-IMRT plans (p < 0.001). The JTT d-IMRT plans deposited lower maximum dose (Dmax) to the lens, eyes, brainstem, spinal cord, and right optic nerve, the doses reductions for these OARs ranged from 2.2% to 28.6%. The JTT d-IMRT plans deposited significantly lower Dmean to various OARs (all p values < 0.05), the mean doses reductions for these OARs ranged from 1.1% to 31.0%, and the value reductions depend on the volume and the location of the OARs. The γ evaluation method showed an excellent agreement between calculation and measurement for all techniques with criteria of 3%/3 mm.

conclusionsBoth jaw tracking and static jaw d-IMRT plans can achieve comparable target dose coverage. JTT displays superior OARs sparing than SJT plans. These results are of clinical importance, especially for the patients with large and complex targets but close to some highly radio-sensitive organs to spare, and for patients with local recurrent or secondary primary malignant lesion within a previously irradiated area.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedJawJaw Relation RecordMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOrgans at RiskRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID25623899
PMCPMC4326511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.