ArticlePloS one2019
mARC preoperative rectal cancer treatments vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy. A dose distribution comparative study.
Article in PloS one, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiotherapy boost to the primary tumour in locally advanced rectal cancer: Systematic review of practices andClinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Review
- Assessment of Radiation-Induced Bladder and Bowel Cancer Risks after Conventionally and Hypo-Fractionated Radiotherapy for the Preoperative Management of Rectal Carcinoma.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposemARC (modulated arc) is the arc therapy technique provided by Siemens. The present study analyses the dose distributions and treatment times corresponding to preoperative rectal cancer mARC treatments. The results are compared to those corresponding to 3D-CRT plans.
methodsThe plans of 30 patients, each having one mARC and one 3D-CRT plan, were evaluated. Every plan was calculated on a sequential two-phase treatment scheme with prescription doses of 45 Gy in the initial phase and 5.4 Gy in the boost phase. Dosimetric parameters and mean DVHs corresponding to the PTVs and OARs were assessed for both techniques.
resultsAll mARC plans were considered valid for treatment and yielded a highly significant improvement in the CI over 3D-CRT plans (p <0.001). They also showed statistically significant advantage on the parameters D98%, D95% and D2% of the high dose PTV. Regarding the OARs, mARC plans showed reductions in the mean dose of 3.5 Gy in the bladder and greater than 4 Gy in the femoral heads. Considering the small bowel, the mARC plans resulted in a 2.7 Gy mean reduction in the mean dose and lower irradiated volumes over the entire dose range.
conclusionsArc therapy plans with the mARC technique for preoperative rectal cancer treatment in a sequential two-phase treatment scheme provide important advantages in the PTVs and OARs. mARC plans show superior protection of the femoral heads, bladder and small bowel, similar to the results found with other more widespread arc therapy techniques.
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.