ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Plan quality and treatment efficiency assurance of two VMAT optimization for cervical cancer radiotherapy.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commissioning and performance evaluations of the electron Monte Carlo algorithm in a new commercial treatment planning system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Real-Time AI-Based Radiotherapy Planning for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Development and Validation.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Shortening breath-hold durations in breast radiotherapy: a novel time-control strategy for deep inspiration breath-hold VMAT.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- An all-in-one workflow for emergency hippocampal-avoidance whole-brain radiotherapy in brain metastases, with optional online adaptive extension.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Implementation of fan-beam CT-guided online adaptive re-planning in definitive cervical cancer radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Plan quality and treatment efficiency assurance of two VMAT optimization for cervical cancer radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- A Comprehensive Dosimetric and Plan Quality Evaluation of Non-coplanar VMAT With Flattening Filter-free Versus Flattened Beams for Hippocampal-Avoidance Whole-Brain Radiotherapy: A Multi-Platform Study on Elekta Infinity and UIH uRT-Linac Systems.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the difference of the fluence map optimization (FMO) and Stochastic platform optimization (SPO) algorithm in a newly-introduced treatment planning system (TPS).
methods34 cervical cancer patients with definitive radiation were retrospectively analyzed. Each patient has four plans: FMO with fixed jaw plans (FMO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (FMO-NFJ); SPO with fixed jaw plans (SPO-FJ) and no fixed jaw plans (SPO-NFJ). Dosimetric parameters, Modulation Complexity Score (MCS), Gamma Pass Rate (GPR) and delivery time were analyzed among the four plans.
resultsFor target coverage, SPO-FJ plans are the best ones (P ≤ 0.00). FMO plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.00). For OARs sparing, SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans for mostly OARs (P ≤ 0.04). Additionally, SPO-FJ plans are better than SPO-NFJ plans (P ≤ 0.02), except for rectum V45Gy. Compared to SPO-NFJ plans, the FMO plans delivered less dose to bladder, rectum, colon V40Gy and pelvic bone V40Gy (P ≤ 0.04). Meanwhile, the SPO-NFJ plans showed superiority in MU, delivery time, MCS and GPR in all plans. In terms of delivery time and MCS, the SPO-FJ plans are better than FMO plans. FMO-FJ plans are better than FMO-NFJ plans in delivery efficiency. MCSs are strongly correlated with PCTV length, which are negatively with PCTV length (P ≤ 0.03). The delivery time and MUs of the four plans are strongly correlated (P ≤ 0.02). Comparing plans with fixed or no fixed jaw in two algorithms, no difference was found in FMO plans in target coverage and minor difference in Kidney_L Dmean, Mu and delivery time between PCTV width≤15.5 cm group and >15.5 cm group. For SPO plans, SPO-FJ plans showed more superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing than the SPO-NFJ plans in the two groups.
conclusionsSPO-FJ plans showed superiority in target coverage and OARs sparing, as well as higher delivery efficiency in the four plans.
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.