ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Evaluation of mixed energy partial arcs for volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Versatility of Azine Derivatives: A Comprehensive Review on Synthesis and Biological Applications.Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Does radiation therapy need more than two photon energies from Linac?Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this work was to investigate the dosimetric impact of mixed energy (6-MV, 15-MV) partial arcs (MEPAs) technique on prostate cancer VMAT plans.
methodsThis work involved prostate only patients, planned with 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Femoral heads, bladder, and rectum were considered organs at risk. This study was performed in two parts. For each of the 25 patients in Part 1, two single-energy single-arc plans, a 6 MV-SA plan and a 15 MV-SA plan, and a third MEPA plan involving composite of 6-MV anterior-posterior partial arcs and a 15-MV lateral partial arc weighted 1:2 were created. The dosimetric difference between MEPA(6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) and 6 MV-SA plans, and MEPA(6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) and 15 MV-SA plans were measured. In the Part 2 of this study, a second MEPAs plan (6 MV anterior-posterior arcs and 15 MV lateral arcs weighted 1:1), (MEPA 6/15 MV 1:1 weighted), was generated for 15 patients and compared only with two single-energy partial arcs plans, a 6 and a 15 MV-PA, to investigate the influence of the energy only. Dosimetric parameters of each structure, total monitor-units (MUs), homogeneity index (HI), and conformity number (CN) were analyzed.
resultsIn Part 1, no statistically significant differences were observed for mean dose to PTV and CN for MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) vs 6 and 15 MV-SA. MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) increased HI compared to 6 and 15 MV-SA (P < 0.0005; P < 0.0005). MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:2 weighted) produced significantly lower mean doses to rectum, bladder, and MUs/fraction, but higher mean doses to femoral heads, compared to 6 MV-SA (P < 0.0005) and 15 MV-SA (P < 0.0005). The results of Part 2 of this study showed that, in comparison to 6 and 15 MV-PA, MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:1 weighted) plans significantly improved CNs (P < 0.0005; P < 0.0005) and produced significantly lower mean doses to the rectum and bladder (P < 0.0005; P < 0.0005). While mean doses to the PTV and femoral heads of MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:1 weighted) plans were statistically comparable to 6 MV-PA (P > 0.05), MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:1 weighted) increased mean doses to left (P = 0.04) and right (P = 0.04) femoral heads compared to 15 MV-PA. MEPAs (6/15 MV 1:1 weighted) resulted in significantly lower total MUs compared to 6 MV-PA (P < 0.0005) and 15 MV-PA (P = 0.04).
conclusionThe study for prostate radiotherapy demonstrated that a choice of MEPAs for VMAT has the potential to minimize doses to OARs and improve dose conformity to PTV, at the expense of a moderate increase in mean dose to the femoral heads.
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.