ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2017
Comparison between the four-field box and field-in-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the esophagus using dose-volume histograms and normal tissue complication probabilities.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2017. 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.
- Characterization of dosimetric predictors for pulmonary perfusion changes before and after hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy in node-negative breast cancer patients: A prospective study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Assessment of Field-in-Field, 3-Field, and 4-Field Treatment Planning Methods for Radiotherapy of Gastro-Esophageal Junction Cancer.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2022Article
- Dosimetric analysis and biological evaluation between proton radiotherapy and photon radiotherapy for the long target of total esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of PRIMO Monte Carlo code and Eclipse treatment planning system in calculation of dosimetric parameters in brain cancer radiotherapy.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022Article
- Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Dose prescription point in forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy of breast and head/neck cancers.Radiological physics and technology · 2018Article
- What Is the Optimal Radiation Technique for Esophageal Cancer? A Dosimetric Comparison of Four Techniques.Cureus · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated and compared the performance of the field-in-field (FIF) to that of the four-field box (4FB) technique regarding dosimetric and radiobiological parameters for radiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty patients with esophageal cancer were selected. For each patient, two treatment plans were created: 4FB and FIF. The parameters compared included the conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), D
resultsA paired t-test analysis did not show any significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two techniques in terms of the CI and TCP. However, the HI significantly improved when the FIF was applied. D
conclusionsThe FIF showed evident advantages over 4FB: a more homogeneous dose distribution, lower D
Indexed as
Identifiers
28421397What 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.