SynthesisJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Dosimetric comparison of coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements for radiotherapy of patients with lung cancer: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Helical intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs. C-arm-based volumetric modulated arc therapy for sinonasal tumours: organ at risk sparing and treatment efficiency.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Dosimetric advantages of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using biaxially rotational dynamic radiation therapy compared with coplanar VMAT in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy with focal boost.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Clinical implementation and evaluation of a patient-specific surface-guided clearance mapping system for collision avoidance and noncoplanar beam planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Benchmarking MapRT and first clinical experience: A novel solution for collision-free non-coplanar treatment planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- CyberKnife in Pediatric Oncology: A Narrative Review of Treatment Approaches and Outcomes.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Modified VMAT Plans for Locally Advanced Centrally Located Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Lung SBRT: Dose gradient optimization based on target size.Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical DosimetristsArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRadiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of lung cancer, and both coplanar beam arrangements (CBA) and noncoplanar beam arrangements (NCBA) are adopted in clinic practice. The aim of this study is to answer the question whether NCBA are dosimetrically superior to CBA.
methodsSearch of publications were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochran Library till March 2020. The searching terms were as following: ((noncoplanar) or ("non coplanar") or ("4pi") or ("4π")) AND (("lung cancer") or ("lung tumor") or ("lung carcinoma")) AND ((radiotherapy) or ("radiation therapy")). The included studies and extracted data were manually screened. All forest and funnel plots were carried out with RevMan software, and the Egger's regression asymmetry tests were conducted with STATA software.
resultsNine studies were included and evaluated in the meta-analysis and treatment plans were designed with both CBA and NCBA. For the planning target volumes (PTV), D98%, D2%, the conformity index (CI), and the gradient index (GI) had no statistically significant difference. For organs-at-risk (OAR), V20 of the whole lung and the maximum dose of the spinal cord were significantly reduced in NCBA plans compared with CBA ones. But V10, V5, and mean dose of the whole lung, the maximum dose of the heart, and the maximum dose of the esophagus exhibited no significant difference when the two types of beam arrangements were compared.
conclusionAfter combining multicenter results, NCBA plans have significant advantages in reducing V20 of the whole lung and max dose of spinal cord.
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.