ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016
Comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simultaneous stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arc therapy: a prospective monocentric registry trial.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Trial
- Review
- A multi-institutional survey on radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases in Latin America.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- HyperArc Automated Stereotactic Radiosurgery Planning Enables Accurate a Priori Fractionation Scheme Selection via Adherence to HyTEC Toxicity Thresholds.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Decision-making between DCA and VMAT in Linac-based SRS for brain lesions: A dosimetric analysis based on tumor size and geometry and introduction of Qasym.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dose conformity and falloff in single-lesion intracranial SRS with DCA and VMAT methods.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Comparative study of dynamic conformal arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for treating single brain metastases: A retrospective analysis of dosimetric and clinical outcomes.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Stereotactic Radiation Therapy of Single Brain Metastases: A Literature Review of Dosimetric Studies.Cancers · 2023Review
- Impact of systematic MLC positional uncertainties on the quality of single-isocenter multi-target VMAT-SRS treatment plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Intra-fractional motion error during HyperArc stereotactic radiosurgery on patients with brain metastases: Comparison of open and full-face clamshell-style immobilization devices.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- A patient-specific QA comparison between 2D and 3D diode arrays for single-lesion SRS and SBRT treatments.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2021Article
- Retrospective quality metrics review of stereotactic radiosurgery plans treating multiple targets using single-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Dosimetric impact of rotational errors on the quality of VMAT-SRS for multiple brain metastases: Comparison between single- and two-isocenter treatment planning techniques.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- A simple knowledge-based tool for stereotactic radiosurgery pre-planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of robotic radiosurgery for brain metastases: Comparison with C-arm linear accelerator based plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases: dosimetric comparison of VMAT and a dedicated DCAT planning tool.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Combination of IFITM1 knockdown and radiotherapy inhibits the growth of oral cancer.Cancer science · 2018Article
- Modifying the planning target volume to optimize the dose distribution in dynamic conformal arc therapy for large metastatic brain tumors.Japanese journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Article
- Dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with segment shape optimization and variable dose rate versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for liver SBRT.Reports 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to analyze arc therapy techniques according to the number and position of the brain lesions reported by comparing dynamic noncoplanar conformal arcs (DCA), two coplanar full arcs (RAC) with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), multiple noncoplanar partial arcs with VMAT (RANC), and two full arcs with VMAT and 10° table rotation (RAT). Patients with a single lesion (n= 10), multiple lesions (n = 10) or a single lesion close to organs at risk (n = 5) and previously treated with DCA were selected. For each patient, the DCA treatment was replanned with all VMAT techniques. All DCA plans were compared with VMAT plans and evaluated in regard to the different quality indices and dosimetric parameters. For single lesion, homogeneity index (HI) better results were found for the RANC technique (0.17 ± 0.05) compared with DCA procedure (0.27± 0.05). Concerning conformity index (CI), the RAT technique gave higher and better values (0.85 ± 0.04) compared with those obtained with the DCA technique (0.77 ± 0.05). DCA improved healthy brain protection (8.35 ± 5.61 cc vs. 10.52 ± 6.40 cc for RANC) and reduced monitor unit numbers (3046 ± 374 MU vs. 4651 ± 736 for RANC), even if global room occupation was higher. For multiple lesions, VMAT techniques provided better HI (0.16) than DCA (0.24 ± 0.07). The CI was improved with RAT (0.8 ± 0.08 for RAT vs. 0.71 ± 0.08 for DCA). The V10Gy healthy brain was better protected with DCA (9.27 ± 4.57 cc). Regarding the MU numbers: RANC < RAT< RAC < DCA. For a single lesion close to OAR, RAT achieved high degrees of homogeneity (0.27 ± 0.03 vs. 0.53 ± 0.2 for DCA) and conformity (0.72± 0.06vs. 0.56 ± 0.13 for DCA) while sparing organs at risk (Dmax = 12.36 ± 1.05Gyvs. 14.12 ± 0.59 Gy for DCA, and Dmean = 3.96 ± 3.57Gyvs. 4.72 ± 3.28Gy for DCA). On the other hand, MU numbers were lower with DCA (2254 ± 190 MUvs. 3438 ± 457 MU for RANC) even if overall time was inferior with RAC. For a single lesion, DCA provide better plan considering low doses to healthy brain even if quality indexes are better for the others techniques. For multiple lesions, RANC seems to be the best compromise, due to the ability to deliver a good conformity and homogeneity plan while sparing healthy brain tissue. For a single lesion close to organs at risk, RAT is the most appropriate technique.
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.