ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023
Dosimetric quality of HyperArc in boost radiotherapy for single glioblastoma: comparison with CyberKnife and manual VMAT.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Game engine-driven high-precision collision simulation system for radiation therapy: development and clinical evaluation.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- A glimpse into the CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery system: technical specifications and developments during thirty years.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Impact of Multileaf Collimator Width and Normal Tissue Objective on Radiation Dose Distribution in Stereotactic Radiosurgery Using HyperArc for Single Brain Lesions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Dosimetric evaluation of a novel automated noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy technique for treating optic nerve sheath meningiomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Case Report: Therapeutic effect of hypofractionated radiotherapy using HyperArc for giant cavernous sinus hemangiomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Dosimetric comparison of HyperArc and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans in treating single and multiple brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Single isocenter dynamic conformal arcs-based radiosurgery for brain metastases: Dosimetric comparison with Cyberknife and clinical investigation.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- A Dosimetric Comparison of HyperArc Therapy Planning and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Planning in Treating Patients With Glioblastoma Multiforme.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy are feasible treatment options for single glioblastoma multiforme when combined with conventional radiotherapy or delivered alone. HyperArc (HA), a novel linac-based method with 4 noncoplanar arcs, has been introduced into stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for single and multiple metastases. In this study, we compared the dosimetric quality of HyperArc with the well-established CyberKnife (CK) and conventional VMAT methods of SRT for a single, large target.
methodsSixteen patients treated in our center with their clinical CK plans were enrolled, and the linac-based plans were designed in silico. From the aspect of normal tissue protection and treatment efficacy, we compared the conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), dose distribution in planning target volume, dose in the normal brain tissue, and mean dose of several organs at risk (OARs). All of the data were evaluated with nonparametric Kruskal‒Wallis tests. We further investigated the relationship of the dose distribution with the tumor volume and its location.
resultsThe results showed that with a higher CI (0.94 ± 0.03) and lower GI (2.57 ± 0.53), the HA plans generated a lower dose to the OARs and the normal tissue. Meanwhile, the CK plans achieved a higher HI (0.35 ± 0.10) and generated a higher dose inside the tumor. Although manual VMAT showed slight improvement in dose quality and less monitoring units (2083 ± 225), HA can save half of the delivery time of CK (37 minutes) on average.
conclusionHA plans have higher conformity and spare OARs with lower normal tissue irradiation, while CK plans achieve a higher mean dose in tumors. HA with 4 arcs is sufficient in dosimetric quality for a single tumor with great convenience in planning and treatment processes compared with conventional VMAT. The tumor size and location are factors to be considered when selecting treatment equipment.
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.