Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27974507›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2017

Validation of the relative insensitivity of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan quality to gantry space resolution.

Ghulam Murtaza, Stefania Cora, Ehsan Ullah Khan

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Dosimetric sensitivity of leaf width on volumetric modulated arc therapy plan quality: an objective approach.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Dosimetric effect of limited aperture multileaf collimator on VMAT plan quality: A study of prostate and head-and-neck cancers.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ghulam MurtazaMedical Physics Department, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy.
Stefania CoraMedical Physics Department, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy.
Ehsan Ullah KhanPhysics Department, International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is an efficient form of radiotherapy used to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy beams. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative insensitivity of VMAT plan quality to gantry angle spacing (GS). Most previous VMAT planning and dosimetric work for GS resolution has been conducted for single arc VMAT. In this work, a quantitative comparison of dose-volume indices (DIs) was made for partial-, single- and double-arc VMAT plans optimized at 2°, 3° and 4° GS, representing a large variation in deliverable multileaf collimator segments. VMAT plans of six prostate cancer and six head-and-neck cancer patients were simulated for an Elekta SynergyS® Linac (Elekta Ltd, Crawley, UK), using the SmartArc™ module of Pinnacle³ TPS, (version 9.2, Philips Healthcare). All optimization techniques generated clinically acceptable VMAT plans, except for the single-arc for the head-and-neck cancer patients. Plan quality was assessed by comparing the DIs for the planning target volume, organs at risk and normal tissue. A GS of 2°, with finest resolution and consequently highest intensity modulation, was considered to be the reference, and this was compared with GS 3° and 4°. The differences between the majority of reference DIs and compared DIs were <2%. The metrics, such as treatment plan optimization time and pretreatment (phantom) dosimetric calculation time, supported the use of a GS of 4°. The ArcCHECK™ phantom-measured dosimetric agreement verifications resulted in a >95.0% passing rate, using the criteria for γ (3%, 3 mm). In conclusion, a GS of 4° is an optimal choice for minimal usage of planning resources without compromise of plan quality.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedDose-Response Relationship, RadiationHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleOrgans at RiskProstatic Neoplasmsgantry angle spacemultiple VMAT techniquesplan quality

Identifiers

PMID27974507
PMCPMC5569918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.