ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2020
Evaluation of plan quality and robustness of IMPT and helical IMRT for cervical cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proton beam therapy indications in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A SARO clinical practice guideline.Saudi medical journal · 2025Guideline
- Optimizing ovarian dose sparing for young cervical cancer patients after oophoropexy: a dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of three radiotherapy techniques (IMPT, TOMO, and VMAT).Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Development and feasibility assessment of an automated, synthetic CT-guided plan selection system for bladder cancer adaptive radiotherapy: a retrospective pilot study.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Dosimetric comparison and prognostic analysis of helical tomotherapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced cervical cancer.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Definition of a framework for volumetric modulated arc therapy plan quality assessment with integration of dose-, complexity-, and robustness metrics.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- ACR-ARS Practice Parameter for the Performance of Proton Beam Therapy.International journal of particle therapy · 2024Article
- Development and validation of an automated Tomotherapy planning method for cervical cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- [Quantitative evaluation of radiotherapy plan in precise external beam radiotherapy process management for cervical cancer].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of robust optimization against geometric uncertainties in TomoHelical planning for prostate cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy Combined with Intracavitary Posterior Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Medium-Term and Advanced Cervical Cancer: Efficacy, Safety and Prognostic Factors.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Comparing Efficacy Between Robust and PTV Margin-based Optimizations for Interfractional Anatomical Variations in Prostate Tomotherapy.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBoth plan quality and robustness were investigated through comparing some dosimetric metrics between intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and helical tomotherapy based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical cancer.
methodsBoth a spot-scanning robust (SRO) IMPT plan and a helical tomotherapy robust (TRO) IMRT plan were generated for each of 18 patients. In order to evaluate the quality of nominal plans without dose perturbations, planning scores (PS) on clinical target volume (CTV) and five organs at risk (OARs) based on clinical experience, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) of rectum and sigmoid were calculated based on Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model. Dose volume histogram bands width (DVHBW) were calculated in 28 perturbed scenarios to evaluate plan robustness.
resultsCompared with TRO, the average scores of SRO nominal plans were higher in target metrics [V
conclusionBetter CTV coverage and OAR Sparing were obtained in SRO nominal plan. Based on NTCP calculation, SRO was expected to allow a small reduction in rectal toxicity. Furthermore, SRO generated a more robust plan in CTV target coverage.
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.