ArticleCureus2024
Sparing the Hippocampus in Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation Using Three Different Linear Accelerators: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hippocampus protection, as an organ at risk in brain radiotherapy, might protect patients' quality of life. Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) has been used traditionally in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients as it increases survival. This study aimed to discover the contributing parameters for a successful PCI with simultaneous protection of the hippocampus by using three different treatment machines. For this purpose, treatment plans were generated for 45 SCLC patients using three half-arcs in three linear accelerators (LINACs; Elekta Infinity, Synergy, and Axesse; Elekta Ltd, Stockholm, Sweden) with different radiation field sizes and multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf thickness characteristics. The prescribed dose was 25 Gy in 10 fractions. Thresholds for the hippocampus were calculated based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0933 dose constraints. The planning and treatment system templates were common to all three LINACs. Plan evaluation was based on the dosimetric target coverage by the 95% isodose, the maximum dose of the plan, the conformity index (CI), the degree of plan modulation (MOD), and the patient-specific quality assurance (QA) pass rate. The mean target coverage was highest for Infinity (97.3%), followed by Axesse (96.6%) and Synergy (95.5%). The mean maximum dose was higher for Synergy (27.5 Gy), followed by Infinity (27.0 Gy) and Axesse (26.9 Gy). Axesse plans had the highest CI (0.93), followed by Infinity (0.91) and Synergy (0.88). Plan MOD was lower for Synergy (2.88) compared with Infinity (3.07) and Axesse (3.69). Finally, patient-specific QA was successful in all Infinity plans, in all but one Synergy plan, and in 17/45 Axesse plans, as was expected from the field size in that treatment unit. Based on overall performance, the most favorable combination of target coverage, hippocampus sparing, and plan deliverability was obtained with the LINAC, which has the largest field opening and thinnest MLC leaves.
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.