ArticleBMC cancer2016
Can advanced new radiation therapy technologies improve outcome of high grade glioma (HGG) patients? analysis of 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) versus volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients treated with surgery, concomitant and adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based dose prediction for stereotactic prostate cancer radiotherapy with CyberKnife.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A Dosimetric Comparison of Coplanar Versus Noncoplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for High Grade Glioma.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of hypofractionated short-course versus standard radiation therapy in elderly patients with glioblastoma: analysis of nationwide database.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Radiotherapy for glioma in the AI era: current applications and future prospects.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Revolutionizing Brain Tumor Care: Emerging Technologies and Strategies.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Article
- 3D-CRT versus RapidArc in Deep Tempero-Parietal High Grade Gliomas: Do We Really Need Higher Technology?Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Large tumour volume reduction of IDH-mutated anaplastic glioma involving the insular region following radiotherapy.BMC neurology · 2022Article
- Pattern of failure in anaplastic glioma patients with an IDH1/2 mutation.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020Article
- Development of a novel morphological paclitaxel-loaded PLGA microspheres for effective cancer therapy: in vitro and in vivo evaluations.Drug delivery · 2018Article
- Advances in Molecular Pathology, Diagnosis and Treatment of Spinal Cord Astrocytomas.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
- Multi-institutional evaluation using the end-to-end test for implementation of dynamic techniques of radiation therapy in Thailand.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
- Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus Volumetric Arc Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Glioblastoma-Does Clinical Benefit Follow Dosimetric Advantage?Advances in 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the impact of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) compared with 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in patients with newly diagnosed high grade glioma in terms of toxicity, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
methodsFrom March 2004 to October 2014, 341 patients underwent surgery followed by concomitant and adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. From 2003 to 2010, 167 patients were treated using 3DCRT; starting from 2011, 174 patients underwent VMAT. The quantitative evaluation of the treatment plans was performed by means of standard dose volume histogram analysis. Response was recorded using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria and toxicities graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event version 4.0.
resultsBoth techniques achieved an adequate dose conformity to the target. The median follow up time was 1.3 years; at the last observation 76 patients (23.4 %) were alive and 249 (76.6 %) dead (16 patients were lot to follow-up). For patients who underwent 3DCRT, the median PFS was 0.99 ± 0.07 years (CI95: 0.9-1.1 years); the 1 and 3 years PFS were, 49.6 ± 4 and 19.1 ± 3.1 %. This shall be compared, respectively, to 1.29 ± 0.13 years (CI95: 1.01-1.5 years), 60.8 ± 3.8, and 29.7 ± 4.6 % for patients who underwent VMAT (p = 0.02). The median OS for 3DCRT patients was 1.21 ± 0.09 years (CI95:1.03-1.3 years); 1 and 5 year OS was, 63.3 ± 3.8 and 21.5 ± 3.3 %. The corresponding results for 3DRCT patients were 1.56 ± 0.09 years (CI95:1.37-1.74 years), 73.4 ± 3.5, 30 ± 4.6 % respectively (p < 0.01). In both groups, prognostic factors conditioning PFS and OS were age, gender, KPS, histology and extent of resection (EOR).
conclusionsVMAT resulted superior to 3DCRT in terms of dosimetric findings and clinical results.
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.