ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018
Dosimetric evaluation of VMAT for palliative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung carcinoma.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: To compare the dosimetric consequences of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for high-dose palliative thoracic radiotherapy through comparison with conventionally used isocentric parallel opposed pair (POP) of fields.
methods: 20 consecutive patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received 36 Gy in 12 fractions using a POP technique were re-planned using a single VMAT arc. Salient dosimetric parameters were compared between the plans using a paired t-test.
results: VMAT demonstrated dosimetric superiority; all PTV dose parameters were significantly improved and importantly the volume of normal lung receiving a high dose was also significantly reduced (mean volume of normal lung receiving 36 Gy was 12.9% in POP vs 1.8% in VMAT, p < 0.005).
conclusion: The standard POP technique does not take into account tissue densities which results in higher doses to the normal tissue outside the target volume and reduced conformity to the PTV. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: With the help of modern VMAT techniques, it is possible to effectively achieve highly conformal dose delivery which may provide an opportunity to escalate the dose to the tumour in this group of patients.
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.