Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36684696›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical physics

To Study the Impact of Different Optimization Methods on Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Plans for Hip Prosthesis Patients.

Pawan Kumar Singh, Deepak Tripathi, Sukhvir Singh, Manindra Bhushan, Lalit Kumar, Kothanda Raman, Soumitra Barik, Gourav Kumar, Sushil Kumar Shukla, Munish Gairola

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Pawan Kumar SinghAmity Institute of Applied Sciences, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Deepak TripathiAmity Institute of Applied Sciences, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Sukhvir SinghRadiological Physics and Internal Dosimetry Group, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences, Defence Research and Development Organisation, Delhi, India.
Manindra BhushanAmity Institute of Applied Sciences, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Lalit KumarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
Kothanda RamanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
Soumitra BarikDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
Gourav KumarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
Sushil Kumar ShuklaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
Munish GairolaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre · INAmity University · INAmity University · AEDefence Research and Development Organisation · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To study the impact of different optimization methods in dealing with metallic hip implant using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. Materials and Methods: A cohort of 16 patients having metallic implants was selected for the study. Three sets of IMRT and VMAT plans were generated. Set 1 IMRT (IM_Base), VMAT (VM_Base) without any restrictions on beam entry and exit, set 2 (IM_ENT and VM_ENT) optimizer restricts the beam entry and set 3 (IM_EXT+ENT), neither entry nor exit doses were allowed toward the metallic implant. Results: There was no significant difference in target (D Conclusion: The best approach is to plan hip prosthesis cases with blocked entry of radiation beam for IMRT and VMAT. The VMAT plans had more volumetric coverage, fewer hotspots, and lesser heterogeneity.

Indexed as

Artifactsintensity-modulated radiotherapymetallic implantsoptimizationvolumetric-modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID36684696
PMCPMC9847001
OpenAlexW4312760894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.