ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024
A Comparison of Field-in-Field and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Delivering Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study compares the dosimetric performance of the field-in-field (FIF) technique with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for delivering hypofractionated radiation therapy to prostate patients with cancer. The FIF technique uses 6 beams, whereas IMRT uses 9 beams. Methods and Materials: This study was conducted on 15 patients with prostate cancer treated with step-and-shoot IMRT. The prescribed dose was 60 Gy in 20 fractions. The FIF plans contained 6 photon beams, and IMRT plans were designed using a 9-field step-and-shoot technique. Dose-volume histograms and dose distributions were evaluated to compare FIF and IMRT. Results: The results of the planning target volume indices analysis showed a significant difference in the maximum dose, dose to 2% of volume, and homogeneity index in favor of FIF and in the mean dose, dose to 98% of volume, and D95 in favor of IMRT. The results of the organs-at-risk analysis showed significant differences in the volume of the rectum and bladder receiving 60 Gy in favor of FIF and the volume of the rectum and femoral heads receiving 30 Gy, as well as the mean dose to the rectum, in favor of IMRT. IMRT had a higher median number of monitor units (MUs) and segments (886 MU, 64 segments) compared to FIF (434 MUs, 6 segments). Conclusions: The FIF technique and IMRT had comparable results in delivering hypofractionated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. The findings of this study may aid in decision-making for patients undergoing treatment.
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.