ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2020
Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating dosimetric outcomes: a comparison of CyberKnife, VMAT FFF, and Helical Tomotherapy Radixact for treating localized prostate cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a study comparing 3-year genitourinary toxicity between CyberKnife and volumetric-modulated arc therapy by propensity score analysis.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: CyberKnife vs. VMAT-FFF, a Dosimetric Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Plan comparison of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy in spacer implant patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was conducted to dosimetrically compare plan quality of Simultaneous Integrated Boost - Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SIB-SBRT) generated for different techniques such as Cyberknife (CK), Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and RapidArc (RA) for carcinoma prostate with same treatment margins. MATERIALS AND
methodsSIB-SBRT plans were generated for CK, HT and RA for thirteen CT data sets. The dose prescription was 45Gy in 5 fractions to GTV45 and 37.5Gy in 5 fractions to PTV37.5. The plan quality evaluation of the three techniques was done by comparing the DVH parameters, conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI). For OAR's mean, maximum dose and dose volumes were compared for bladder, rectum and bilateral femoral heads. The number of Monitor Units (MU) delivered and Beam-on time (BOT) were also compared.
resultsD2%, D50% and DMean to GTV45 was significantly higher in the CK compared to HT and RA (CK vs HT: p values, <0.001, 0.002 and 0.003; CK vs RA: p values, 0.001, 0.004 and 0.004) respectively. RA gives a better gradient index compared to CK and HT. Conformity indices of the RA plans were better than the CK plans (P<0.001). Normal tissue and integral dose delivered to the patient in HT and CK were found to be significantly higher than RA. The average number of MU's and BOT were significantly higher in CK (p<0.001).
conclusionUsing the same treatment margins and dose constraints, RA achieved better target dose distribution and sparing of critical structures compared to CK and HT. RA seemed to be the optimal planning technique for SIB-SBRT treatment of carcinoma prostate.<br />.
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.