ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Comparison of treatment planning parameters for dose painting head and neck plans delivered with tomotherapy.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of delivery time factor on treatment time and plan quality in tomotherapy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Treatment-integrated imaging, radiomics, and personalised radiotherapy: the future is at hand.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022Review
- Combined quality and dose-volume histograms for assessing the predictive value ofEJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Determining efficient helical IMRT modulation factor from the MLC leaf-open time distribution on precision treatment planning system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Accurate, robust and harmonized implementation of morpho-functional imaging in treatment planning for personalized radiotherapy.PloS one · 2019Article
- Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor.Journal of radiation research · 2018Article
- Comparison of dose distribution for head and neck cancer patients with and without dose painting escalation during radiotherapy realized with tomotherapy unit.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Evaluation of Optimal Combination of Planning Parameters (Field Width, Pitch, and Modulation Factor) in Helical Tomotherapy for Bilateral Breast Cancer.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Influence of Modulation Factor on Treatment Plan Quality and Irradiation Time in Hippocampus-Sparing Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Using Tomotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- Personalized radiotherapy treatment planning based on functional imaging.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyReview
- Performance of the eclipse monitor unit objective tool utilizing volumetric modulated arc therapy for rectal cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
- IMRT/VMAT dose distributions generated forReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine which physical delivery parameter changes are most suitable for multiple-level dose-painting treatment plans with helical tomotherapy (HT).
methodsA total of 96 treatment plans were generated for 12 patients who had undergone fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT ((18)F-FDG-PET/CT) scan to plan head and neck cancer treatment. Based on these PET-CT images, the dose was escalated to 96 Gy in 32 fractions as a function of PET intensity values. The intensity-based prescription was converted into seven discrete dose levels. For the same patient, different HT plans were optimized by varying parameters such as field width (FW), pitch (PF) and modulation factor (MF). Dose conformity was evaluated using quality-volume histograms, quality factors (QFs), weighted index of achievement (IOAw), coldness (IOCw) and hotness (IOHw). Moreover, doses to organs at risk (OARs), target volumes and execution time were analyzed.
resultsMedian QFs were the best for FW = 1.05 cm (QF = 2.10) and the worst for FW = 2.5 cm (QF = 3.04). The same trend was observed for IOAw, IOCw and IOHw. Combination of FW = 1.05 cm and MF = 5 leads to the longest beam-on time (above 25 min), whereas FW = 2.5 cm and MF = 3 lead to the shortest time (below 8 min). Data analyzed based on dose-volume histogram showed that changes in FW had the strongest impact on plan quality, whereas the effect of MF and PF changes was moderate.
conclusionHT is suitable for multiple-level dose-painting treatment plans. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Changes in FW and MF had the greatest impact on dose distribution quality and beam-on time. Changes in PF only influenced doses to the OARs.
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.