ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Efficacy of stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases using dynamic jaws technology in the helical tomotherapy system.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for multiple targets with tomotherapy using multiple sets of static ports from different angles.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDynamic jaws (DJ) are expected to be useful in stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for brain metastases (BM). The efficacy and optimal dose fractionation were investigated.
methodsIn a planning study, 63 treatment plans were generated for the following 3 conditions: 1.0-cm fixed jaws (FJ), 2.5-cm FJ and 2.5-cm DJ. In a clinical study, 30 Gy/3 fr, 35 Gy/5 fr or 37.5 Gy/5 fr were prescribed depending on tumour size. Clinical results of groups treated with 2.5-cm DJ plans and 1.0-cm FJ were compared.
resultsIn the planning study, the treatment times in 2.5-cm DJ and FJ plans were less than that in 1.0-cm FJ plans (p < 0.001). The brain doses in 1.0-cm FJ plans and 2.5-cm DJ plans were smaller than those in 2.5-cm FJ plans (p < 0.05). In the clinical study, 34 patients with 68 BM were treated with SRT. Of those, 15 patients with 34 BM were treated with 2.5-cm DJ plans and 19 patients with 34 BM were treated with 1.0-cm FJ plans. The overall survival and local tumour control (LC) rates were 52 and 93% at 12 months, respectively. The DJ system achieved favourable LC and 29% shorter treatment time compared with the FJ system (p < 0.001). Grade 2 or 3 necrosis occurred more frequently in patients with 15 cc or larger tumour volumes (p = 0.05).
conclusionDJ technology enables treatment time to be reduced without worsening the dose distribution and clinical efficacy. The prescribed doses in this study may be acceptable for patients with small tumour volumes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DJ technology enables treatment time to be reduced without worsening the dose.
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.