ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Dosimetric and biological comparisons of single planning and double plannings for bilateral lung cancer SBRT planning based on the Cyber-Knife system.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim is to investigate the influence of single planning (Plan S) and double plannings (Plan D) on bilateral lung cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy planning from the perspective of dosimetry and biology respectively. Methods Cases with bilateral lung cancer patients who had undergone SBRT with the Cyber-Knife were enrolled, and a single planning and double plannings were designed in the Multiplan@4.2 treatment planning system equipped with the Cyber-Knife system. The single plan was to optimize the two target volumes in a separate plan, while the dual plan is to optimize two target volumes respectively in two separate plans, then perform dose superposition. Then based on the dosimetric results, the biological parameters were calculated. Thus the quality of SBRT plans for those bilateral lung cancer designed by the two methods were compared and evaluated according to the dosimetric and biological results. Results: The dose distribution of both planning target volumes and surrounding organs at risk in Plan S and Plan D could meet the clinical prescription requirements. The target conformity index and the new conformity index of PTV were closer to 1 in the Double plannings, and the dose gradient GI in the Plan D was smaller than Plan S. For organs at risks, the doses received by the Plan D were relatively small. In terms of biological models, for the equivalent uniform dose of normal lung tissue, heart and esophagus, the Plan D was 6.51% ( Conclusions: Dosimetric and biological results show that both the use of Plan D have an advantage of protecting normal tissues, and it was suggested that to design double plannings for bilateral lung cancer stereotactic body radiation therapy planning based on Cyber-Knife in the clinical practice.
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.