ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Plan comparison of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy in spacer implant patients.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plan comparison of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy in spacer implant patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), hydrogel spacers are increasingly used. This study aimed to perform a dosimetry comparison of treatment plans using CyberKnife (CK), commonly used for prostate SBRT, Helical TomoTherapy (HT), and TrueBeam (TB) in patients with hydrogel spacer implantations. The data of 20 patients who received hydrogel spacer implantation for prostate SBRT were retrospectively analyzed. The prescription dose was 36.25 Gy in five fractions to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV; D95). The conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), and dose-volume histogram (DVH) were analyzed for the three modalities, using the same PTV margins. The monitor unit (MU) and the beam-on-time (BOT) values were subsequently compared. The CI of TB (0.93 ± 0.02) was significantly superior to those of CK (0.82 ± 0.03, p < 0.01) and HT (0.86 ± 0.03, p < 0.01). Similarly, the GI value of TB (3.59 ± 0.12) was significantly better than those of CK (4.31 ± 0.43, p < 0.01) and HT (4.52 ± 0.24, p < 0.01). The median doses to the bladder did not differ between the CK and TB (V18.1 Gy: 16.5% ± 4.5% vs. 15.8% ± 4.4%, p = 1.00), but were significantly higher for HT (V18.1 Gy: 33.2% ± 7.3%, p < 0.01 vs. CK, p < 0.01 vs. TB). The median rectal dose was significantly lower for TB (V18.1 Gy: 5.6% ± 4.5%) than for CK (V18.1 Gy: 11.2% ± 6.7%, p < 0.01) and HT (20.2% ± 8.3%, p < 0.01). TB had the shortest BOT (2.6 min; CK: 17.4 min, HT: 6.9 min). TB could create treatment plans dosimetrically comparable to those of CK when using the same margins, in patients with hydrogel spacers.
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.