ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Improvement of treatment plan quality with modified fixed field volumetric modulated arc therapy in cervical cancer.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Article
- Improvement of treatment plan quality with modified fixed field volumetric modulated arc therapy in cervical cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
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
purposeThis study aims to introduce modified fixed field volumetric modulated arc therapy (MF-VMAT) which manually opened the field size by fixing the jaws and comparing it to the typical planning technique, auto field volumetric modulated arc therapy (AF-VMAT) in cervical cancer treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Previously treated twenty-eight cervical cancer plans were retrospectively randomly selected and replanned in this study using two different planning techniques: AF-VMAT and MF-VMAT, resulting in a total of fifty-six treatment plans. In this study, we compared both planning techniques in three parts: (1) Organ at Risk (OARs) and whole-body dose, (2) Treatment plan efficiency, and (3) Treatment plan accuracy.
resultsFor OARs dose, bowel bag (p-value = 0.001), rectum (p-value = 0.002), and left femoral head (p-value = 0.001) and whole-body (p-value = 0.000) received a statistically significant dose reduction when using the MF-VMAT plan. Regarding plan efficiency, MF-VMAT exhibited a statistically significant increase in both number of monitor units (MUs) and control points (p-values = 0.000), while beam-on time, maximum leaf travel, average maximum leaf travel, and maximum leaf travel per gantry rotation were statistically significant decreased (p-values = 0.000). In terms of plan accuracy, the average gamma passing rate was higher in the MF-VMAT plan for both absolute dose (AD) (p-value = 0.001, 0.004) and relative dose (RD) (p-value = 0.000, 0.000) for 3%/3 and 3%/2 mm gamma criteria, respectively.
conclusionThe MF-VMAT planning technique significantly reduces OAR doses and decreases the spread of low doses to normal tissues in cervical cancer patients. Additionally, this planning approach demonstrates efficient plans with lower beam-on time and reduced maximum leaf travel. Furthermore, it indicates higher plan accuracy through an increase in the average gamma passing rate compared to the AF-VMAT plan. Consequently, MF-VMAT offers an effective treatment planning technique for cervical cancer patients.
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.