ArticlePeerJ2022
Influence of beamlet width on dynamic IMRT plan quality in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of setup errors on dose distribution in cervical cancer radiotherapy and the margin from CTV to PTV.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to identify the effects of beamlet width on dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and determine the optimal parameters for the most effective radiotherapy plan. Methods: This study evaluated 20 patients with NPC were selected for dynamic IMRT. Only the beamlet width in the optimization parameters was changed (set to 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mm that were named BL02, BL04, BL06, BL08, and BL10, respectively) to optimize the results of the five groups of plans. Using the plan quality scoring system, the dose results of the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risks (OARs) were analyzed objectively and comprehensively. The lower the quality score, the better the quality of the plan. The efficiency and accuracy of plan execution were evaluated using monitor units (MUs) and plan delivery time (PDT). Results: The BL04 mm group had the lowest quality score for the targets and OARs (0.087), while the BL10 mm group had the highest total score (1.249). The BL04 mm group had the highest MUs (837 MUs) and longest PDT (358 s). However, the MUs range of each group plan was below 100 MUs, and the PDT range was within 30 s. In the BL02, BL04, BL06, BL08, and BL10 plans, <5 MUs segments accounted for 33%, 16%, 24%, 33%, and 40% of total segments, respectively, with which the lowest was in the BL04 mm group. Conclusion: Smaller beamlet widths have not only reduced OARs dose while maintaining high dose coverage to the PTVs, but also lead to more MUs that would produce greater PDT. Considering the quality and efficiency of dynamic IMRT, the beamlet width value of the Monaco treatment planning system set to 4 mm would be optimal for NPC.
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.