ArticleRadiation oncology journal2020
Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy in head and neck cancer treated with radiotherapy.
Article in Radiation oncology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric and robustness evaluation of biaxially rotational dynamic radiation therapy with robust optimization.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Impact of iso-dose levels on pre-treatment quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc therapy.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Dosimetric Comparison of Noncoplanar VMAT Without Rotating the Patient Couch Versus Conventional Coplanar/Noncoplanar VMAT for Head and Neck Cancer: First Report of Dynamic Swing Arc.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Benchmarking MapRT and first clinical experience: A novel solution for collision-free non-coplanar treatment planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Automated hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases: Halcyon, HyperArc on TrueBeam, and coplanar TrueBeam.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric Comparison between the HyperArc and Conventional VMAT in Cervical Spine Stereotactic Radiosurgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Dosimetric evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging-guided adaptive radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer by extent of re-contouring of organs-at-risk.Radiation oncology journal · 2022Article
- Organ-at-risk sparing with dynamic trajectory radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: comparison with volumetric arc therapy on a publicly available library of cases.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the correlation between dosimetric, geometric, and technical parameters of radiosurgery planning for multiple brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Article
- Dosimetric Comparison of Coplanar, Non-coplanar, and Mixed-Arc VMAT for Head and Face Skin Cancers: A Multi-scenario Analysis.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
- Dosimetric Comparision of Coplanar versus Noncoplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Treatment of Bilateral Breast Cancers.Journal of medical physicsArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the dosimetric variations in patients of head and neck cancer treated with definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy using optimized non-coplanar (ncVMAT) beams with coplanar (cVMAT) beams using volumetric arc therapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-two patients of head and neck cancer that had received radiotherapy using VMAT in our department were retrospectively analyzed. Each of the patients was planned using coplanar and non-coplanar orientations using an optimized couch angle and fluences. We analyzed the Conformity Index (CIRTOG), Dose Homogeneity Index (DHI), Heterogeneity Index (HIRTOG), low dose volume, target and organs-at-risk coverage in both the plans without changing planning optimization parameters.
resultsThe prescription dose ranged from 60 Gy to 70 Gy. Using ncVMAT, CIRTOG, DHI and HIRTOG, and tumor coverage (ID95%) had improved, low dose spillage volume in the body V5Gy was increased and V10Gy was reduced. Integral dose and intensity-modulated radiation therapy factor had increased in ncVMAT. In the case of non-coplanar beam arrangements, maximum dose (Dmax) of right and left humeral head were reduced significantly whereas apex of the right and left lung mean dose were increased.
conclusionThe use of ncVMAT produced better target coverage and sparing of the shoulder and soft tissue of the neck as well as the critical organ compared with the cVMAT in patients of head and neck malignancy.
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.