ArticleJournal of medical physics
A Dosimetric Comparison of Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy and IMRT for Cochlea-sparing Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Cancer.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-Time AI-Based Radiotherapy Planning for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Development and Validation.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Insights into the Prognostic Efficacy of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in the Era of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy: A Nomogram for Predicting Long-Term Survival Outcomes.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Oncologists' views on ototoxicity monitoring in head and neck cancer patients: A South Indian qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Optimizing Hearing Outcomes in Nasopharyngeal Cancer Survivors in the Era of Modern Radiotherapy and Systemic Therapy.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Head-and-neck cancer treatment includes radiotherapy as a crucial component. However, radiotherapy, like other treatment modalities, has its own side effects, some of which can be avoided using the latest medical technology and understanding the illness. Despite being a relatively uncommon subtype of head-and-neck cancer, radiation is essential in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Because of the complex anatomy of the nasopharyngeal region, it is difficult to plan radiotherapy without sparing the cochlea, an important part of the auditory system, and the radiotherapy dosage to it may cause sensorineural hearing loss. In the modern era, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) have become the gold standard in radiotherapy. With the advancement of these techniques, cochlear sparing is now possible without compromising the tumor dose. Materials and Methods: We reviewed 14 plans for patients with locally advanced NPC who had received radiation in our department. VMAT plans were created for patients who had IMRT radiotherapy and vice versa. Both approaches were evaluated in terms of cochlea sparing while maintaining the coverage of the planned target volume (PTV). Results: Our study compared the results of two different radiation techniques for locally advanced NPC, IMRT, and VMAT in 14 cases, and we found that VMAT was associated with a lower maximum dose to the cochlea, a lower mean dose to the cochlea, a higher PTV D98% (Gy), a lower PTV D2% (Gy), a higher PTV V95% (%), a lower heterogeneity index, and a higher conformity index. The Conclusion: These results suggest that VMAT is a better radiation technique than IMRT for locally advanced NPC. VMAT is associated with a lower dose to the cochlea and other organs at risk, which can improve the quality of life and survival of patients.
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.