ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology2022
Comparison between flattening filter-free (FFF) and flattened photon beam VMAT plans for the whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampus sparing.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coplanar versus non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiotherapy using Monte Carlo-based planning system.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Fluence smoothing evaluation for whole-breast automatically generated treatment plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of radiation treatment plan quality in head and neck cancer: a comparative analysis of RapidArc technique with flattening filter and flattening filter-free photon beams.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- Swin Transformer-based automatic delineation of the hippocampus by MRI in hippocampus-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Dosimetric verification of annual quality assurance for a linear accelerator using a transmission type detector.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy for hippocampal-sparing prophylactic cranial irradiation: Planning comparison of Halcyon and C-arm accelerators.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison between flattening filter-free (FFF) and flattened photon beam VMAT plans for the whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampus sparing.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
- A Comprehensive Dosimetric and Plan Quality Evaluation of Non-coplanar VMAT With Flattening Filter-free Versus Flattened Beams for Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole-Brain Radiotherapy: A Multi-Platform Study on Elekta Infinity and UIH uRT-Linac Systems.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- Dosimetric Comparison of Unmatched Flattening Filter-free and Flattened Beams in Volumetric Arc Therapy Plans for Head-and-neck Cancer.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Analysis of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Large Planning Target Volumes in Rectal Cancer: Flattening Filter-free Halcyon System versus Flattened Filter Clinac iX.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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and investigate the feasibility of flattening filter-free (FFF) beam for the whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with hippocampus sparing.
methodsEighteen patients with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in FFF and conventional beam modes were included in this study. The prescribed dose was 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index reported by TPS (HI-M), and homogeneity index (HI) for planning target volume (PTV) were evaluated. Subsequently, the following parameters for PTV were calculated and compared: D
resultsHI-M results were similar for the two techniques (1.239 vs. 1.247, respectively, p = 0.048); FFF beam plans yielded lower D2% compared to FF beam plans (3,416.3 cGy vs. 3,437.2 cGy, p = 0.22), mean dose (3,177.5 cGy vs. 3,195.2 cGy, p = 0.009), and CI (0.884 vs. 0.876, p = 0.001) for PTV. Significant differences were observed between the two beam modes (FF model vs. FFF model) for the maximum dose (1,612.9 cGy vs. 1,470.2 cGy, respectively, p < 0.001), minimum dose (987.6 cGy vs. 898.8 cGy, respectively, p < 0.001), and the mean dose (1144.4 cGy vs. 1047.3 cGy, respectively, p < 0.001) to the hippocampus, and the maximum dose to the eyes (2,792.6 cGy vs. 2,751.3 cGy, respectively, p < 0.001). The average total MUs for FFF-VMAT plans was significantly greater than FF-VMAT plans. However, differences for the plan modulation index and the gamma index were negligible.
conclusionIn comparison with FF beam, the FFF beam mode offers a clear benefit with respect to WBRT with hippocampal sparing.
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.