ArticleThe British journal of radiology2015
Dosimetric evaluation of compensator intensity modulation-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements for radiotherapy of patients with lung cancer: A meta-analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Pooled it
- Phase II study of compensator-based non-coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy for Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.Journal of radiation research · 2019Trial
- Is severe emphysema, as defined by quantitative CT measurement, a negative risk factor of radiation fibrosis?The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
- A novel software and conceptual design of the hardware platform for intensity modulated radiation therapy.Medical physics · 2016Article
- Evaluation of Dose Distribution in Intensity Modulated Radiosurgery for Lung Cancer under Condition of Respiratory Motion.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the dosimetry of compensator intensity modulation-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) [non-coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ncIMRT)], its use was compared with that of three-dimensional conformation-based SBRT, for patients with Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methods21 consecutive patients with Stage I NSCLC were treated with ncIMRT or SBRT at Tokyo Medical University. To compare the two techniques, ncIMRT and SBRT plans for each patient were generated, where the planning target volume (PTV) coverages were adjusted to be equivalent to each other. The prescribed dose was set as 75 Gy in 30 fractions. PTV coverage, conformity index, conformation number (CN) and homogeneity index (HI) were used to compare the two strategies.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between PTV coverage for the 100%, 95% and 90% dose levels in the SBRT plan and those in the ncIMRT plan. The CN values were 0.53 ± 0.13 in the SBRT plan and 0.72 ± 0.10 in the ncIMRT plan. These values were significantly better than those of the SBRT plan (p < 0.001). The HI in the ncIMRT plan was 1.04 ± 0.03%, which was also significantly better than that of SBRT.
conclusionThe ncIMRT plan provided superior conformity and reduced the doses to the lung for patients with Stage I NSCLC. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The delivery technique with compensator intensity modulation-based SBRT was evaluated. Concerning target motion, this is thought to be more robust and safer than SBRT for early-stage NSCLC.
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.