ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment2017
Dosimetric Comparison and Evaluation of 4 Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Techniques for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating dosimetric outcomes: a comparison of CyberKnife, VMAT FFF, and Helical Tomotherapy Radixact for treating localized prostate cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Article
- SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: CyberKnife vs. VMAT-FFF, a Dosimetric Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Ultra-Hypofractionated Proton Therapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: Passive Scattering versus Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Adaptive radiation therapy strategies in the treatment of prostate cancer patients using hypofractionated VMAT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Development of raster scanning IMRT using a robotic radiosurgery system.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Dosimetric comparison among cyberknife, helical tomotherapy and VMAT for hypofractionated treatment in localized prostate cancer.Medicine · 2020Article
- Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer - 5-year efficacy results.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020Article
- In silico assessment of the dosimetric quality of a novel, automated radiation treatment planning strategy for linac-based radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases and a comparison with robotic methods.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare dosimetric characteristics, monitor unit, and delivery efficiency of 4 different stereotactic body radiotherapy techniques for the treatment of prostate cancer.
methodsThis study included 8 patients with localized prostate cancer. Dosimetric assets of 4 delivery techniques for stereotactic body radiotherapy were evaluated: robotic CyberKnife, noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and 2 intensity-modulated arc therapy techniques (RapidArc and Elekta volumetric-modulated arc therapy). All the plans had equal treatment margins and a prescription dose of 35 Gy in 5 fractions.
resultsStatistically significant differences were observed in homogeneity index and mean doses of bladder wall and penile bulb, all of which were highest with CyberKnife. No significant differences were observed in the mean doses of rectum, with values of 15.2 ± 2.6, 13.3 ± 2.6, 13.1 ± 2.8, and 13.8 ± 1.6 Gy with CyberKnife, RapidArc, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy, respectively. The highest dose conformity was realized with RapidArc. The dose coverage of the planning target volume was lowest with noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Treatment times and number of monitor units were largest with CyberKnife (on average 34.0 ± 5.0 minutes and 8704 ± 1449 monitor units) and least with intensity-modulated arc therapy techniques (on average 5.1 ± 1.1 minutes and 2270 ± 497 monitor units).
conclusionCompared to CyberKnife, the RapidArc, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy produced treatment plans with similar dosimetric quality, with RapidArc achieving the highest dose conformity. Overall, the dosimetric differences between the studied techniques were marginal, and thus, the choice of the technique should rather focus on the delivery accuracies and dose delivery times.
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.