ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022
Modified volumetric modulated arc therapy technique with reduced planning and treatment time for craniospinal irradiation utilising two isocentres.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. 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.
- Necessity of daily IGRT? Dosimetric study of beam position offsets at central double-beam junction in pediatric craniospinal irradiation.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Dosimetry by Optical-CT and Radiochromic Gel Dosimeter of a Multiple Isocenter Craniospinal Radiation Therapy Procedure.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPaediatric patients (individuals below 18 years of age) requiring cranial-spinal irradiation (CSI) at our institution are commonly planned and treated using a three isocentre (3-ISO) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique. A modified two isocentre (2-ISO) VMAT technique was investigated with the aim to improve workflow and reduce planning and treatment time.
methodsFive CSI paediatric patients previously treated with a 3-ISO VMAT technique were retrospectively replanned using a 2-ISO VMAT technique. The 2-ISO VMAT plans were reviewed and approved by a radiation oncologist (RO) before undergoing patient-specific quality assurance (QA) procedures, performed by a radiation oncology medical physicist (ROMP). Planning target volume (PTV) coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) dose as well as planning and treatment durations of the first five patients utilising 2-ISO technique were compared with 3-ISO technique.
resultsThe average percentage difference in PTV coverage by 95% reference dose between the 2-ISO and 3-ISO is 0.14%, and the average difference in OAR median dose is 0.68 Gy. Conformity and homogeneity indices have the same averages at 1.18 and 0.4 respectively. Patient-specific physics QA results were all comparable with the 3-ISO averages at 98.84% and the 2-ISO at 98.71%. Planning duration for the 2-ISO was reduced by up to 75%, and daily treatment duration was reduced by up to 50%. Of all the previously treated CSI patients using a 3-ISO technique, 45% were suitable for the 2-ISO technique.
conclusionThe 2-ISO VMAT technique provided comparable dose distribution based on PTV coverage, OAR dose and plan metric indices. Reduced planning and treatment duration with the 2-ISO technique facilitated improved workflow with decreased sedation time for paediatric patients requiring a general anaesthesia.
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.