ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
Dosimetric evaluation of helical tomotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a planning study for dose escalation.
Article in Translational cancer research, 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.
- Modulation of AMPK/NLRP3 Signaling Mitigates Radiation-Induced Lung Inflammation by a Synthetic Lipoxin A4 Analogue.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the dosimetric differences between helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans for inoperable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).
methodsTen patients with inoperable MPM were retrospectively planned with the HT and VMAT techniques, and the dose-volume histogram (DVH)-based parameters of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared.
resultsCompared with the VMAT plans, the target homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the HT plans were significantly better (HI: 1.04±0.01
conclusionsCompared to the VMAT plans, the HT plans not only demonstrated more optimal target coverage and conformity but also considerably reduced the dose-volume parameters of the OARs in both low-dose areas in contralateral lung and high-dose areas in ipsilateral lung and contralateral lung, which is correlated to radiation injury. However, the treatment delivery time of the HT plans was longer.
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.