Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29868727›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2018

Interfacility variation in treatment planning parameters in tomotherapy: field width, pitch, and modulation factor.

Hidetoshi Shimizu, Koji Sasaki, Takashi Kubota, Hiroshi Fukuma, Takahiro Aoyama, Tohru Iwata, Hiroyuki Tachibana, Takeshi Kodaira

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Hidetoshi ShimizuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Koji SasakiGraduate School of Radiological Technology, Gunma Prefectural College of Health Sciences, 323-1 Kamioki, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Takashi KubotaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Hiroshi FukumaDepartment of Radiology, Nagoya City University Hospital, 1-Kawasumi, Mizuho-Cho, Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Takahiro AoyamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Tohru IwataDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Hiroyuki TachibanaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Takeshi KodairaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several studies have reported changes in dose distribution and delivery time based on the value of specific planning parameters [field width (FW), pitch, and modulation factor (MF)] in tomotherapy. However, the variation in the parameters between different facilities is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine standard values of the above parameters for cases of head and neck cancer (HNC) and prostate cancer (PC) in Japan. In this survey, a web-based questionnaire was sent to 48 facilities performing radiation therapy with tomotherapy in March 2016. The deadline for data submission was April 2016. In the questionnaire, the values of the planning parameters usually used were requested and 23 responses were received, representing a response rate of 48% (23/48). The FW selected was 2.5 cm in most facilities, and facilities with a tomoEDGE license used dynamic FW rather than fixed FW. Facilities changed the pitch based on FW, dose per fraction, or target offset more frequently in HNC than in PC. In contrast, >50% of the facilities used the magic number proposed by Kissick et al. Median preset MFs (range, min to max) in HNC and PC were 2.4 (1.8-2.8) and 2.0 (1.8-3.0), respectively, and MF values showed large variations between the facilities. Our results are likely to be useful to several facilities designing treatment plans in tomotherapy.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy DosageHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansInternetJapanMaleProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29868727
PMCPMC6151637

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.