Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38832123›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Comparative study of dynamic conformal arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for treating single brain metastases: A retrospective analysis of dosimetric and clinical outcomes.

Isabelle Chambrelant, Delphine Jarnet, Clara Le Fèvre, Laure Kuntz, Julian Jacob, Catherine Jenny, Georges Noël

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors.

Isabelle ChambrelantDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), UNICANCER, Paul Strauss Comprehensive Cancer Center, 67200 Strasbourg, France.
Delphine JarnetDepartment of Medical Physics, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), UNICANCER, Paul Strauss Comprehensive Cancer Center, 67200 Strasbourg, France.
Clara Le FèvreDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), UNICANCER, Paul Strauss Comprehensive Cancer Center, 67200 Strasbourg, France.
Laure KuntzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), UNICANCER, Paul Strauss Comprehensive Cancer Center, 67200 Strasbourg, France.
Julian JacobDepartment of Radiation Oncology, AP-HP. Sorbonne Université, Hôpitaux Universitaires Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47-83 Bd de l'Hôpital, 75651 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Catherine JennyDepartment of Medical Physics, AP-HP. Sorbonne Université, Hôpitaux Universitaires Pitié Salpêtrière, 47-83 Bd de l'Hôpital, 75651 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Georges NoëlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe (ICANS), UNICANCER, Paul Strauss Comprehensive Cancer Center, 67200 Strasbourg, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) is commonly used to treat brain metastases (BMs). This retrospective study compared two SRT techniques, dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), for single BM treatments. Material and methods: Data of patients treated between January 2010 and June 2020 were considered. Patients with multiple BMs, resected BMs, reirradiation, whole-brain radiation therapy and brainstem metastases were excluded. We focused our analysis on 97 patients who received 23.1 Gy in three fractions. Acute toxicities and follow-up outcomes were recorded. Dosimetric data were analyzed in two subgroups (PTV ≤ 10 cc and PTV > 10 cc). Results: DCAT and VMAT were used in 70 (72.2 %) and 27 (27.8 %) patients, respectively. Acute toxicities were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.259), and no difference was detected in the incidence rate of radionecrosis, local recurrence and cerebral recurrence (p > 0.999, p > 0.999 and p = 0.682, respectively). PTV coverage was better with DCAT for small volumes (PTV ≤ 10 cc). Mean conformity index (CI) was significantly higher with VMAT and mean gradient index (GI) was significantly lower with DCAT whatever volume subgroups (p < 0.001). DCAT had more heterogeneous plans and VMAT required more monitor units. DCAT resulted in reduced low and intermediate doses, whereas VMAT led to decreased high doses. Conclusion: DCAT and VMAT are two effective and safe SRT techniques for BMs treatment. In the era of re-irradiation, it is important to reduce the doses delivered to healthy tissues. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Indexed as

Dosimetric indexesDynamic conformal arc therapySingle brain metastasisStereotactic radiation therapyVolumetric modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID38832123
PMCPMC11145388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.