ArticleContemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland)2021
The impact of different optimization strategies on the agreement between planned and delivered doses during volumetric modulated arc therapy for total marrow irradiation.
Article in Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aim of the studyTo evaluate the agreement between planned and delivered doses and its potential correlation with the plans' complexity subjected to dosimetric verification. MATERIAL AND
methodsFour isocentre volumetric modulated arc therapy for total marrow irradiation plans optimized simultaneously with (P1) and without (P2) MU reduction were evaluated dosimetrically by γ method performed in a global mode for 4 combinations of γ-index criteria (2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 3%/3 mm). The evaluation was conducted for 4 regions (head and neck, chest, abdomen and upper pelvis, and lower pelvis and thighs) that were determined geometrically by the isocentres. The Wilcoxon test was used to detect significant differences between γ passing rate (GPR) analysis results for the P1 and P2 plans. The Pearson correlation was used to check the relationship between GPR and the plans' complexity.
resultsExcept for the head and neck region, the P2 plans had better GPRs than the P1 plans. Only for hard combinations of γ-index criteria (i.e. 2%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm) were the GPRs differences between P1 and P2 clinically meaningful, and they were detected in the chest, abdomen and upper pelvis, and lower pelvis and thighs regions. The highest correlations between GPR and the indices describing the plans' complexity were found for the chest region. No correlation was found for the head and neck region.
conclusionsThe P2 plans showed better agreement between planned and delivered doses compared to the P1 plans. The GPR and the plans' complexity depend on the anatomy region and are most important for the chest region.
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.