ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Plan quality analysis of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy treatment planning in liver tumor.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pancreatic SBRT on four modern platforms: dosimetric and radiobiological gains with the Ethos ring-gantry linac versus TrueBeam, Halcyon, and helical tomotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Plan quality analysis of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy treatment planning in liver tumor.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in the liver, RTOG-1112 guides the treatment modalities including the dose constraints for this technique but not the plan parameters. This study is not only analyzing the plan quality by utilizing the plan parameters and indexes but also compares treatment modalities from the protocol implementation. METHOD AND MATERIAL: Twenty-five patients treated in the period from February 2020 to September 2022 were recruited in this analysis. Two planners randomly selected the patients and modalities. The modalities employed were Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT). Various parameters and indexes were used to access not only the plan quality but also to compare each modality. The parameters and indexes studied were the homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), gradient distance (GD), and the dose received by the organs at risk.
resultThe data reveals that the mean volume of PTV is 60.8 ± 53.9 cc where these targets exhibit no significant difference between each modality. The HI shows a consistent value for both modalities. Between each modality, the CI value shows less deviation, but the HT shows slightly higher performance than VMAT. The value of GD is 1.5 ± 0.3 cm where the HT provides a shorter distance compared to VMAT as well.
conclusionThe parameters and indexes should be utilized for the plan evaluation although in the guidelines this was not required. Various modalities were employed for treatment. Both can achieve the treatment criteria with slightly low performance of VMAT.
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.