ArticleCureus2021
Comparison of Moderate Hypofractionated Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Plans With and Without Flattening Filter for Localized Prostate Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric comparison of VMAT plans in preoperative short-course rectal radiotherapy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Dosimetric and Radiobiological Impact of Flattening Filter-Free Beam and Dose Calculation Algorithm Using RapidArc Plans for Cervical Cancer Treatment.Precision radiation oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim The aim of this study was to compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiation plans between conventional VMAT with flattening filter (cFF-VMAT) and flattening filter-free VMAT (FFF-VMAT) for localized prostate cancer. Materials and methods Ten patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent cFF-VMAT at Yokosuka General Hospital Uwamachi, Yokosuka, Japan, from July 2020 to October 2020 were enrolled. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of the target volume, normal organs, monitor units (MU), and beam-on time (BOT) were compared between cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT plans. Results No significant difference was observed for DVH parameters for the target volume. No significant difference was observed in all parameters for the bladder and rectum between the cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT groups. The mean values of MU were 686 ± 52 and 784 ± 80 in cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean BOT was 97.0 ± 6.6 s and 72.9 ± 1.4 s for cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion DVH parameters of the target volume and normal organs were not significantly different between the cFF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT plans. In FFF-VMAT, MU was significantly higher, and the BOT was significantly shorter than those in cFF-VMAT.
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.