ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Quality of tri-Co-60 MR-IGRT treatment plans in comparison with VMAT treatment plans for spine SABR.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. 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, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Deep Learning-Based Dose Distribution Prediction with Bayesian Networks for Decision Support in Radiotherapy for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer.Cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Article
- Cobalt compensator-based IMRT device: A treatment planning study of head and neck cases.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2023Article
- MRI-guided stereotactic ablative radiation therapy of spinal bone metastases: a preliminary experience.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Article
- Characteristics of the Exradin W1 scintillator in the magnetic field.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Comparison of treatment plans between IMRT with MR-linac and VMAT for lung SABR.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Monte Carlo modeling of a 60Co MRI-guided radiotherapy system on Geant4 and experimental verification of dose calculation under a magnetic field of 0.35 T.Journal of radiation research · 2019Article
- Comparison of treatment plan quality among MRI-based IMRT with a linac, MRI-based IMRT with tri-Co-60 sources, and VMAT for spine SABR.PloS one · 2019Article
- Validation of new transmission detector transmission factors for online dosimetry: an experimental study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Hybrid Tri-Co-60 MRI radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: AnTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2018Article
- Comparison of the IPSA and HIPO algorithms for interstitial tongue high-dose-rate brachytherapy.PloS one · 2018Article
- Treatment plan comparison between Tri-Co-60 magnetic-resonance image-guided radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer.Oncotarget · 2017Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the plan quality of tri-Co-60 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for spine stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR).
methodsA total of 20 patients with spine metastasis were retrospectively selected. For each patient, a tri-Co-60 IMRT plan and a volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan were generated. The spinal cords were defined based on MR images for the tri-Co-60 IMRT, while isotropic 1-mm margins were added to the spinal cords for the VMAT plans. The VMAT plans were generated with 10-MV flattening filter-free photon beams of TrueBeam STx
resultsThe mean dose to the target volumes, conformity index and homogeneity index of the VMAT and tri-Co-60 IMRT were 17.8 ± 0.8 vs 13.7 ± 3.9 Gy, 0.85 ± 0.20 vs 1.58 ± 1.29 and 0.09 ± 0.04 vs 0.24 ± 0.19, respectively. The integral doses and beam-on times were 16,570 ± 1768 vs 22,087 ± 2.986 Gy cm
conclusionThe tri-Co-60 IMRT seems inappropriate for spine SABR compared with VMAT. Advances in knowledge: For spine SABR, the tri-Co-60 IMRT is inappropriate owing to the large penumbra, large leaf width and low dose rate of the ViewRay system.
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.