ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2015
The effect of body contouring on the dose distribution delivered with volumetric-modulated arc therapy 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of body contour changes on the setup and dosimetric accuracy of radiotherapy after cervical cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Statistical process control to monitor use of a web-based autoplanning tool.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate the dosimetric effect defining the body structure with various Hounsfield unit (HU) threshold values on the dose distributions of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. Twenty patients with prostate cancer and twenty patients with head and neck (H&N) cancer were retrospectively selected. For each patient, the body structure was redefined with HU threshold values of -180 (Body180), -350 (Body350), -700 (Body700), and -980 (Body980). For each patient, dose-volumetric parameters with those body structures were calculated using identical VMAT plans. The differences in dose-volumetric parameters due to the varied HU threshold values were calculated. For the prostate boost target volume, the maximum dose, mean dose, D95%, and D5% with Body180 were higher than those with Body980 by approximately 0.7% (p < 0.001). For H&N target volumes, the changes in D95% of the targets receiving 67.5 Gy, 54 Gy, and 48 Gy between Body180 and Body980 were -1.2%, -0.9%, and -1.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). The differences were larger for H&N VMAT plans than for prostate VMAT plans due to the inclusion of an immobilization device in the irradiated region in H&N cases. To apply all attenuating materials to dose calculation, the body structure would be defined with -980 HU. Otherwise, systematic error of about 1%, resulting in underdosage of the target volume, can occur.
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.