ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2017
Dosimetric Comparison of Three Different Radiotherapy Techniques in Antrum-Located Stomach Cancer
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2017. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Optimal tumor coverage with different beam energies by IMRT, VMAT and TOMO: Effects on patients with proximal gastric cancer.Medicine · 2020Article
- IMRT Reduces Acute Toxicity in Patients Treated With Preoperative Chemoradiation for Gastric Cancer.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The current optimal radiotherapy (RT) planning technique for stomach cancer is controversial. The design of RT for stomach cancer is difficult and differs according to tumor localization. Dosimetric and clinical studies have been performed in patients with different tumor localizations. This may be the main source of inconsistencies in study results. For this reason, we attempted to find the optimal RT technique for patients with stomach cancer in similar locations. Methods: This study was based on the computed tomography datasets of 20 patients with antrum-located stomach cancer. For each patient, treatments were designed using physical wedge-based conformal RT (WB-CRT), field-in-field intensity-modulated RT (FIF-IMRT), and dynamic intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). The techniques were compared in terms of expected target volume coverage and the dose to organs at risk (OAR) using a dose-volume histogram analysis. Results: FIF-IMRT was the most homogenous technique, with a better homogeneity index than WBCRT (p<0.001) or IMRT (p<0.001). However, IMRT had a better conformity index than WBCRT (p<0.001) or FIF-IMRT (p<0.001). Additionally, all OAR, including the kidneys, liver, and spinal cord, were better protected with IMRT than with WBCRT (p=0.023 to <0.001) or FIF-IMRT (p=0.028 to <0.001). Conclusions: In comparison to FIF-IMRT and WBCRT, IMRT appears to be the most appropriate technique for antrum-located stomach cancer. To establish whether IMRT is superior overall will require clinical studies, taking into account differences in both tumor localization (cardia, body, and antrum) and organ movement in patients with stomach cancer.
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.