Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38774570›Full record

ArticleEcancermedicalscience2024

Optimising craniospinal irradiation for medulloblastoma: a dosimetric comparison of two VMAT planning methods.

Niketa Thakur, Nancy Bansal, Meena Sudan, Abhishek Sharma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Niketa ThakurDepartment of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Bilaspur 174037, India.
Nancy BansalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar 143501, India.
Meena SudanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar 143501, India.
Abhishek SharmaDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) poses a challenging planning process because of the complex target volume. Traditional 3D conformal CSI does not spare any critical organs, resulting in toxicity in patients. Here the dosimetric advantages of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using partial arc and avoidance sectors are compared with each other in planning in adult patients undergoing CSI to develop a clinically feasible technique that is both effective and efficient. Patient and methods: Eight adult patients treated with CSI were retrospectively identified. In total 16 plans were made. We generated two plans for each patient: 1. VMAT plan using partial arc, namely VMAT_pa. 2. VMAT plan using avoidance sectors, namely VMAT_as. The dose prescribed was 36 Gy in 20 fractions. The dose-volume histogram for planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) (lens, eye, heart, thyroid, lungs, liver, gonads and kidneys) were analysed and compared. Dose parameters of mean dose, V Results: The median length of PTV is 65.58 cm (45.8-79.5). The volume of PTV receiving 95% of the dose (V95%) in both the plans are 97.51% (VMAT_as) and 97.99% (VMAT_pa) ( Conclusion: This study provides a practically useful VMAT planning method for the treatment of CSI and illustrates the ability of VMAT using avoidance sectors to generate highly conformal and homogeneous treatment plans for CSI, while limiting the dose to the relevant OARs.

Indexed as

avoidance sectorcraniospinal irradiationpartial arcvolumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)

Identifiers

PMID38774570
PMCPMC11108045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.