ArticleJournal of medicine and life2023
Dosimetric comparison between intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy to enhance bladder and bowel.
Article in Journal of medicine and life, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men. Two common radiotherapy techniques, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), are used for treatment. This study aimed to compare the two techniques for sparing the bladder and bowel. Computed tomography data from prostate cancer patients were analyzed to define the clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). Treatment plans were generated with Monte Carlo algorithms, and dosimetric analysis was performed using the Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS). We compared IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer PTV coverage (% Ref. Volume), with VMAT showing slightly better coverage (98.885±1.704) compared to IMRT (98.594±0.923). VMAT also demonstrated improved PTV conformity. Additionally, VMAT was superior in sparing the bladder (% V4500<40%), while IMRT performed better in bowel preservation (mean Ref. volume CC<195).
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.