ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2015
Impact of MLC properties and IMRT technique in meningioma and head-and-neck treatments.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of log file source and data frequency on accuracy of log file-based patient specific quality assurance.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- Characterization of a novel VenusX orthogonal dual-layer multileaf collimator.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Dosimetric evaluation study of IMRT and VMAT techniques for prostate cancer based on different multileaf collimator designs.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2023Article
- Bone Invasive Meningioma: Recent Advances and Therapeutic Perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Complexity metrics for IMRT and VMAT plans: a review of current literature and applications.The British journal of radiology · 2019Review
- Recurrence pattern analysis after [Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Left-sided breast cancer and risks of secondary lung cancer and ischemic heart disease : Effects of modern radiotherapy techniques.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- Automatic treatment planning improves the clinical quality of head and neck cancer treatment plans.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2016Article
- Capability of leaf interdigitation with different inverse planning strategies in Monaco: an investigation of representative tumour sites.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2016Article
- Intensity modulated arc therapy implementation in a three phase adaptive (18)F-FDG-PET voxel intensity-based planning strategy for head-and-neck cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2016Article
- Impact of MLC properties and IMRT technique in meningioma and head-and-neck treatments.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe impact of multileaf collimator (MLC) design and IMRT technique on plan quality and delivery improvements for head-and-neck and meningioma patients is compared in a planning study. MATERIAL AND
methodsTen previously treated patients (5 head-and-neck, 5 meningioma) were re-planned for step-and-shoot IMRT (ssIMRT), sliding window IMRT (dMLC) and VMAT using the MLCi2 without (-) and with (+) interdigitation and the Agility-MLC attached to an Elekta 6MV linac. This results in nine plans per patient. Consistent patient individual optimization parameters are used. Plans are generated using the research tool Hyperion V2.4 (equivalent to Elekta Monaco 3.2) with hard constraints for critical structures and objectives for target structures. For VMAT plans, the improved segment shape optimization is used. Critical structures are evaluated based on QUANTEC criteria. PTV coverage is compared by EUD, Dmean, homogeneity and conformity. Additionally, MU/plan, treatment times and number of segments are evaluated.
resultsAs constrained optimization is used, all plans fulfill the hard constraints. Doses to critical structures do not differ more than 1 Gy between the nine generated plans for each patient. Only larynx, parotids and eyes differ up to 1.5 Gy (Dmean or Dmax) or 7% (volume-constraint) due to (1) increased scatter, (2) not avoiding structures when using the full range of gantry rotation and (3) improved leaf sequencing with advanced segment shape optimization for VMAT plans. EUD, Dmean, homogeneity and conformity are improved using the Agility-MLC. However, PTV coverage is more affected by technique. MU increase with the use of dMLC and VMAT, while the MU are reduced by using the Agility-MLC. Fastest treatments are always achieved using Agility-MLC, especially in combination with VMAT.
conclusionFastest treatments with the best PTV coverage are found for VMAT plans with Agility-MLC, achieving the same sparing of healthy tissue compared to the other combinations of ssIMRT, dMLC and VMAT with either MLCi2(-/+) or Agility.
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.