ArticleCureus2022
Tomotherapy: Comparison of Hi-ART, Tomo-HD, and Radixact.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A meta-analysis of dose-volume parameters and treatment efficiency comparing O-ring and C-arm accelerator systems for craniospinal irradiations.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of reusing online-generated treatment plans for adaptive radiotherapy in prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Reference dosimetry data and machine performance comparison for tomotherapy delivery systems audited by IROC.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Evaluating dosimetric outcomes: a comparison of CyberKnife, VMAT FFF, and Helical Tomotherapy Radixact for treating localized prostate cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor Treated With Lattice and External Beam Radiation: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Dosimetric comparison of multiple SBRT delivery platforms for pancreatic cancer.European journal of medical research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim In this study, we compared three generations of tomotherapy (Hi-ART, Tomo-HD, and Radixact). This is to study the difference among tomotherapy systems in terms of dose distribution to planning target volume and organs at risk, and irradiation time. Materials and methods The treatment planning CT and contour information used were seven cases of rectum cancer pre-operative irradiation. The contour information used was the planning target volume, and the organs at risk were set as the bladder and body. Optimization was conducted at each planning station using the parameters that were actually used in a clinical setting. The prescribed radiation dose was 25 Gy in five fractions and normalized at the isodose line, covering 95% of the planning target volume. Results There were no significant differences in planning target volume among the three models. Meanwhile, Hi-ART had a significantly higher dose than Tomo-HD and Radixact at body D
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.