ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016
A novel arc geometry setting for pelvic radiotherapy with extensive nodal involvement.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric evaluation of field parameters in VMAT for cervical cancer with inguinal lymphatic drainage extension.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An innovative hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy planning approach via the Halcyon system: achieving lower hippocampal doses.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A simplified non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for the whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampus avoidance.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- A Novel Method for Improving VMAT Plan Quality and Deliverability.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Knowledge-based planning for multi-isocenter VMAT total marrow irradiation.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Effective Organs-at-Risk Dose Sparing in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Using a Half-Beam Technique in Whole Pelvic Irradiation.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiation therapy: planning comparison with Dual-arc and Split-arc partial-field techniques.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to find optimal planning approach for large planning targets with complicated geometry requiring wide field openings. The study presents a novel approach for arc geometry design for pelvic targets with extensive nodal involvement. A total of 15 patients with anorectal carcinoma or vulvar cancer were selected retrospectively. For each patient, one seven-field IMRT plan and three VMAT plans were calculated: one with two 360° arcs with no limitations for the field size (VMATw); one with two asymmetrically field-size-restricted 360° arcs (VMATr); and the proposed novel approach which consisted of one 360° arc with the field size restricted to the central PTV, and another arc divided into two 180° arcs, restricting the field sizes with the focus on the lymph nodes. The techniques were compared in terms of PTV coverage (VPTV(95%)), dose maximum (D(max)), dose conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and organs at risk doses. The proposed novel approach with one full and two half arcs tended to have better PTV coverage (VPTV(95%) = 97% ± 2%, compared to 95% ± 3%, 95% ± 3%, and 97% ± 2% in VMATw, VMATr, and 7f-IMRT, respectively) and lower maxima (D(max) = 107% ± 1%, compared to 110% ± 3%, 110% ± 4%, and 110% ± 4% in VMATw, VMATr, and 7f-IMRT, respectively); and lower or equal organs at risk doses. The superiority of the proposed technique (CI = 1.16 ± 0.05, HI = 9 ± 2) was more pronounced compared with the VMATw plans (CI = 1.41 ± 0.10, paired t-test p < 0.001; HI = 12 ± 2, p < 0.001), but the proposed technique was slightly better also in comparison with the VMATr plans (CI = 1.21 ± 0.07, p < 0.001; HI= 11 ± 4, p = 0.015) and 7f-IMRT plans (CI = 1.18 ± 0.03, p = 0.016; HI = 10 ± 2, p = 0.215). Radiotherapy treatment planning for large and complicated treatment volumes benefits not only from restricting the field size but also from careful field design that considers PTV geometry. This optimizes multileaf collimator movements, leading to better dose conformity and homogeneity.
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.