Trial reportRadiation oncology (London, England)2017
Sparing of normal tissues with volumetric arc radiation therapy for glioblastoma: single institution clinical experience.
Trial report in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective comparisons of the dosimetric differences between coplanar and non-coplanar volume-modulated arc therapy in patients with pediatric brainstem glioma.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with temozolomide for the postoperative chemotherapy treatment of multifocal high-grade glioma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Phospho-Proteomics Analysis of Early Response to X-Ray Irradiation Reveals Molecular Mechanism Potentially Related to U251 Cell Radioresistance.Proteomes · 2024Article
- Glut-3 Gene Knockdown as a Potential Strategy to Overcome Glioblastoma Radioresistance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT): a review of clinical outcomes-what is the clinical evidence for the most effective implementation?The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- 3D-CRT versus RapidArc in Deep Tempero-Parietal High Grade Gliomas: Do We Really Need Higher Technology?Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- To Optimize Radiotherapeutic Plans for Superior Tumor Coverage Predicts Malignant Glioma Prognosis and Normal Tissue Complication Probability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Review
- CD44-associated radioresistance of glioblastoma in irradiated brain areas with optimal tumor coverage.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Observational
- Clinical and dosimetric study of radiotherapy for glioblastoma: three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2018Article
- Cerebral cortex dose sparing for glioblastoma patients: IMRT versus robust treatment planning.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- A Dosimetric Comparison of HyperArc Therapy Planning and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Planning in Treating Patients With Glioblastoma Multiforme.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus Volumetric Arc Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Glioblastoma-Does Clinical Benefit Follow Dosimetric Advantage?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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) require radiotherapy as part of definitive management. Our institution has adopted the use of volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) due to superior sparing of the adjacent organs at risk (OARs) compared to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Here we report our clinical experience by analyzing target coverage and sparing of OARs for 90 clinical treatment plans.
methodsVMAT and IMRT patient cohorts comprising 45 patients each were included in this study. For all patients, the planning target volume (PTV) received 50 Gy in 30 fractions, and the simultaneous integrated boost PTV received 60 Gy. The characteristics of the two patient cohorts were examined for similarity. The doses to target volumes and OARs, including brain, brainstem, hippocampi, optic nerves, eyes, and cochleae were then compared using statistical analysis. Target coverage and normal tissue sparing for six patients with both clinical IMRT and VMAT plans were analyzed.
resultsPTV coverage of at least 95% was achieved for all plans, and the median mean dose to the boost PTV differed by only 0.1 Gy between the IMRT and VMAT plans. Superior sparing of the brainstem was found with VMAT, with a median difference in mean dose being 9.4 Gy. The ipsilateral cochlear mean dose was lower by 19.7 Gy, and the contralateral cochlea was lower by 9.5 Gy. The total treatment time was reduced by 5 min. The difference in the ipsilateral hippocampal D
conclusionsVMAT for GBM patients can provide similar target coverage, superior sparing of the brainstem and cochleae, and be delivered in a shorter period of time compared with IMRT. The shorter treatment time may improve clinical efficiency and the quality of the treatment experience. Based on institutional clinical experience, use of VMAT for the treatment of GBMs appears to offer no inferiority in comparison to IMRT and may offer distinct advantages, especially for patients who may require re-irradiation.
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.