Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33327317›Full record

ArticleMedicine2020

Dosimetric comparison among cyberknife, helical tomotherapy and VMAT for hypofractionated treatment in localized prostate cancer.

Marcello Serra, Gianluca Ametrano, Valentina Borzillo, Maria Quarto, Matteo Muto, Rossella Di Franco, Savino Federica, Filomena Loffredo, Muto Paolo

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marcello SerraDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche Avanzate, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II - Napoli.ORCID 0000-0001-7442-7793
Gianluca AmetranoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale - Naples.
Valentina BorzilloDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale - Naples.
Maria QuartoDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche Avanzate, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II - Napoli.
Matteo MutoDipartimento Onco-Ematologico Radioterapia, Azienda ospedaliera San Giuseppe Moscati - Avellino, Italy.
Rossella Di FrancoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale - Naples.
Savino FedericaDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche Avanzate, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II - Napoli.
Filomena LoffredoDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche Avanzate, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II - Napoli.
Muto PaoloDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale - Naples.
Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · ITAzienda Ospedaliera S.Giuseppe Moscati · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypofractionation for localized prostate cancer treatment is rapidly spreading in the medical community and it is supported by radiobiological evidences (lower α/β ratio compared with surrounding tissues). Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a technique to administer high doses with great precision, which is commonly performed with CyberKnife (CK) in prostate cancer treatment. Since the CyberKnife (CK) is not available at all radiotherapy center, alternative SBRT techniques are available such as Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT). The aim of the present study was to compare the dosimetric differences between the CK, VMAT, and HT plans for localized prostate cancer treatment.Seventeenpatients have been recruited and replanned using VMAT and HT to this purpose: they received the treatment using the CK with a prescription of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions; bladder, rectum and penis bulb were considered as organs at risk (OAR). In order to compare the techniques, we considered DVHs, PTV coverage, Conformity Index and new Conformity Index, Homogeneity Index, beam-on time and OARs received dose.The 3 treatments methods showed a comparable coverage of the lesion (PTV 95%: 99.8 ± 0.4% CK; 98.5 ± 0.8% VMAT; 99.4 ± 0.5% HT. P < .05) and good sparing of OARs. Nevertheless, the beam-on time showed a significant difference (37 ± 9 m CK; 7.1 ± 0.3 m VMAT; 17 ± 2 m HT. P < .05).Our results showed that, although CK is the best SBRT technique for prostate cancer treatment, in case this technology is not available, it can be replaced by a similar treatment delivered by VMAT technique. VMAT can be administrated only if it has an appropriate Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) tracking system.

Indexed as

Radiation Dose HypofractionationRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRadiometry

Identifiers

PMID33327317
PMCPMC7738085
OpenAlexW3111626109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.