ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Comparison of Dosimetric Benefits of Three Precise Radiotherapy Techniques in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients Using a Priority-Classified Plan Optimization Model.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy versus tomotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Tomotherapy for sinonasal teratocarcinosarcoma with SMARCA4 deletion and CTNNB1 mutation: A case report and literature review.Precision radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Optimizing stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for ultra-central lung lesions: a comparative dosimetric analysis.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Dosimetric Comparison of Noncoplanar VMAT Without Rotating the Patient Couch Versus Conventional Coplanar/Noncoplanar VMAT for Head and Neck Cancer: First Report of Dynamic Swing Arc.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of monitor unit optimization in volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.PloS one · 2025Article
- Individualization of clinical target volume delineation in eccentric nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a prospective comparative study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Helical tomotherapy and two types of volumetric modulated arc therapy: dosimetric and clinical comparison for several cancer sites.Radiological physics and technology · 2023Article
- Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus tomotherapy for late T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Impact of Minimum Segment Width on VMAT Plan Quality for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) are broadly applied for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), the best technique remains unclear. Therefore, this study was conducted to address this issue.
methodsThe priority-classified plan optimization model was applied to IMRT, VMAT and TOMO plans in forty NPC patients according to the latest international guidelines. And the dosimetric parameters of planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared among these three techniques. The Friedman M test in SPSS software was applied to assess significant differences.
resultsThe median PGTVnx coverage of IMRT was the lowest (93.5%, P < 0.001) for all T categories. VMAT was comparable to TOMO in OARs clarified as priority I and II, and both satisfied the prescribed requirement. IMRT resulted in a relatively high dose for V25 and V30. Interestingly, subgroup analysis showed that the median PTV coverage of the three techniques was no less than 95% in the early T stage. The heterogeneity index (HI) of PGTVnx in VMAT was better than that in IMRT (P = 0.028). Compared to TOMO, VMAT showed a strong ability to protect eyesight and decrease low-dose radiation volumes. In the advanced T stage subgroup, TOMO numerically achieved the highest median PGTVnx coverage volume compared with VMAT and IMRT (93.61%, 91% and 90%, respectively). The best CI and HI of PCTV-1 were observed in TOMO. Furthermore, TOMO was better than VMAT for sparing the brain stem, spinal cord and temporal lobes (all P < 0.05). However, the median V5, V10, V15, V20 and V25 were significantly higher with TOMO than with VMAT (all P < 0.05).
conclusionIn the early T stage, VMAT provides a similar dose coverage and protection of OARs to IMRT, and there are no obvious advantages to choosing TOMO for NPC patients in the early T stage. TOMO may be recommended for patients in the advanced T stage due as it provides the largest dose coverage of PGTVnx and the best protection of the brain stem, spinal cord and temporal lobes. Additionally, more randomized clinical trials are needed for further clarification.
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.