ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2015
Accelerated tomotherapy delivery with TomoEdge technique.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spiral volumetric modulated arc therapy enhances peak-to-valley dose contrast for 3D-GRID radiotherapy compared to VMAT and tomotherapy.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Effect of tumor size on motion tracking and dosimetric accuracy using Radixact Synchrony.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Prostate radiotherapy may cause fertility issues: a retrospective analysis of testicular dose following modern radiotherapy techniques.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Investigation on the accuracy of field widths and the quantitative relationship with energy variations for dynamic jaws helical tomotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Sequential monoscopic image-guided motion compensation in tomotherapy stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Stereotactic body radiotherapy using helical tomotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of Hi-ARTTranslational cancer research · 2022Article
- Plan comparison of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy in spacer implant patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Comparison of treatment planning approaches for spatially fractionated irradiation of deep tumors.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor.Journal of radiation research · 2018Article
- Accuracy of TomoEDGE dynamic jaw field widths.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
- Analysis of modulation factor to shorten the delivery time in helical tomotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2017Article
- Implementation of TomoEDGE in the independent dose calculator CheckTomo.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2017Article
- Comprehensive dosimetric planning comparison for early-stage, non-small cell lung cancer with SABR: fixed-beam IMRT versus VMAT versus TomoTherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2016Article
- Fast Helical Tomotherapy in a head and neck cancer planning study: is time priceless?Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Article
- Helical Tomotherapy in Local Advanced Breast Cancer Following Mastectomy: Long-term Results and Late Toxicity Analysis.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
TomoEDGE is an advanced delivery form of tomotherapy which uses a dynamic secondary collimator. This plan comparison study describes the new features, their clinical applicability, and their effect on plan quality and treatment speed. For the first 45 patients worldwide that were scheduled for a treatment with TomoEdge, at least two plans were created: one with the previous "standard"mode with static jaws and 2.5 cm field width (Reg 2.5) and one with TomoEdge technique and 5 cm field width (Edge 5). If, after analysis in terms of beam on time, integral dose, dose conformity, and organ at risk sparing the treating physician decided that the Edge 5 plan was not suitable for clinical treatment, a plan with TomoEdge and 2.5 cm field width was created (Edge 2.5) and used for the treatment. Among the 45 cases, 30 were suitable for Edge 5 treatment, including treatments of the head and neck, rectal cancer, anal cancer, malignancies of the chest, breast cancer, and palliative treatments. In these cases, the use of a 5 cm field width reduced beam on time by more than 30% without compromising plan quality. The 5 cm beam could not be clinically applied to treatments of the pelvic lymph nodes for prostate cancer and to head and neck irradiations with extensive involvement of the skull, as dose to critical organs at risk such as bladder (average dose 28 Gy vs. 29 Gy, Reg 2.5 vs. Edge 5), small bowel (29% vs. 31%, Reg 2.5 vs. Edge 5) and brain (average dose partial brain 19 Gy vs. 21 Gy, Reg 2.5 vs. Edge 5) increased to a clinically relevant, yet not statistically significant, amount. TomoEdge is an advantageous extension of the tomotherapy technique that can speed up treatments and thus increase patient comfort and safety in the majority of clinical settings.
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.