ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024
Current practices of craniospinal irradiation techniques in Turkey: a comprehensive dosimetric analysis.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2024. 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.
- The deployment of ProKnow for cloud-based clinical research in radiotherapy.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- A meta-analysis of dose-volume parameters and treatment efficiency comparing O-ring and C-arm accelerator systems for craniospinal irradiations.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates various craniospinal irradiation (CSI) techniques used in Turkish centers to understand their advantages, disadvantages and overall effectiveness, with a focus on enhancing dose distribution.
methodsAnonymized CT scans of adult and pediatric patients, alongside target volumes and organ-at-risk (OAR) structures, were shared with 25 local radiotherapy centers. They were tasked to develop optimal treatment plans delivering 36 Gy in 20 fractions with 95% PTV coverage, while minimizing OAR exposure. The same CT data was sent to a US proton therapy center for comparison. Various planning systems and treatment techniques (3D conformal RT, IMRT, VMAT, tomotherapy) were utilized. Elekta Proknow software was used to analyze parameters, assess dose distributions, mean doses, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI) for both target volumes and OARs. Comparisons were made against proton therapy.
resultsAll techniques consistently achieved excellent PTV coverage (V95 > 98%) for both adult and pediatric patients. Tomotherapy closely approached ideal Dmean doses for all PTVs, while 3D-CRT had higher Dmean for PTV_brain. Tomotherapy excelled in CI and HI for PTVs. IMRT resulted in lower pediatric heart, kidney, parotid, and eye doses, while 3D-CRT achieved the lowest adult lung doses. Tomotherapy approached proton therapy doses for adult kidneys and thyroid, while IMRT excelled for adult heart, kidney, parotid, esophagus, and eyes.
conclusionModern radiotherapy techniques offer improved target coverage and OAR protection. However, 3D techniques are continued to be used for CSI. Notably, proton therapy stands out as the most efficient approach, closely followed by Tomotherapy in terms of achieving superior target coverage and OAR protection.
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.