ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2021
Feasibility of bone marrow sparing volumetric modulated arc therapy to spare active bone marrow in cervical and vaginal cancer patients: a retrospective dosimetric analysis.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of multi-energy CT and fat fraction MRI for characterizing active bone marrow response to pelvic external beam radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Characterization and dosimetric predictors for absolute lymphocyte count changes during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with or without pembrolizumab for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: an analysis of a prospective cohort.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Feasibility of bone marrow sparing volumetric modulated arc therapy to spare active bone marrow in cervical and vaginal cancer patients: a retrospective dosimetric analysis.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionChemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical and vaginal cancer. It is associated with high haematological toxicity (HT) that can lead to treatment interruptions and cancelled chemotherapy cycles, reducing the potential effectiveness of this regimen. Bone marrow sparing (BMS) utilising volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is one method to reduce dose to the active bone marrow (ABM) so that HT rates are reduced. The aim of this paper was to assess whether BMS-VMAT can effectively spare the ABM whilst maintaining clinically acceptable target and organ-at-risk (OAR) doses.
methodsTwenty gynaecological cancer patients treated with definitive CRT at the Liverpool/Macarthur Cancer Therapy centres between 2015 and 2020 were retrospectively included. ABM was delineated based on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging. Weekly blood tests and ABM dose parameters at the V10Gy, V20Gy, V30Gy, V40Gy and Dmean were assessed on original plans for any potential correlation with grade 2+ HT. Replanned with VMAT for BMS, various dose parameters were compared with the original plan to assess for any significant differences.
resultsActive bone marrow doses were significantly reduced (P < 0.001 for all parameters) in BMS-VMAT plans, and significant improvements in target and OAR coverage were found compared with the original plans. Compared with VMAT only, target and OARs were comparable. No significant correlations between HT and ABM doses were found.
conclusionBone marrow sparing volumetric modulated arc therapy can significantly reduce dose to the active bone marrow whilst maintaining acceptable target and OAR doses. Future prospective trials are needed to evaluate the clinical impact of BMS on toxicity and compliance.
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.