ArticleJournal of radiation research2020
Stereotactic body radiotherapy using the forward-planned static-port tomotherapy for lung cancer: a novel planning technique with the newly-developed mode.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the newly-developed static-port forward-planning (FP) mode of tomotherapy, the ratio of the dose of the planning target volume (PTV) periphery to the maximum dose can be easily adjusted by modifying leaf margins when planning stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of FP plans compared to helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and helical 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) plans of SBRT for lung tumors. The three plans were created for 14 tumors in 11 patients. For 13 tumors, 60 Gy in 7.5-Gy fractions was prescribed for a minimum coverage dose of 95% of the PTV (D95). The prescribed isodose line (PIL) was intended to be 60-80% of the maximum dose. Nine angles were used for the FP plans. The median D98 and D50 of the internal target volume for FP, helical-IMRT and helical-3DCRT plans were 70.4, 71.4 and 60.5 Gy, respectively (P < 0.001), and 77.7, 75.7 and 62.3 Gy, respectively (P < 0.0001). The median PIL and the lung volume receiving ≥20 Gy (V20) were 73.4, 73.4 and 94.3%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and 4.7, 4.0 and 5.7%, respectively (P < 0.0001). These parameters were not significantly different between the FP and helical-IMRT plans. The median beam-on times were 238.6, 418.9 and 197.1 s, respectively (P < 0.0001). The FP plans reduced the beam-on time by 43% compared to the helical-IMRT plans. The dose distribution of the FP plans was comparable to that of the helical-IMRT plans. The helical-3DCRT plans could not adjust PIL to be 60-80%.
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.