ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
Evaluation of Dynamic Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) versus Fixed MLC for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) Using the Agility 160-Leaf Collimator.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 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.
- An X-ray and γ-ray combination strategy to exploit steep dose gradients for improved prostate cancer radiotherapy: A dosimetric comparison of Taichi Pro and Halcyon.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Peripheral Dose Measurement Between Apex and Agility Collimators in Linear Accelerators.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of static or step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ssIMRT) and dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (dIMRT) delivery techniques for various treatment sites. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe treatment planning system (TPS) was utilized to develop optimal treatment plans for twenty-seven patients selected for this comparative study, including nine with head and neck cancer, nine with prostate cancer, and nine with cervical cancer. The prescribed doses were 7000cGy/33fr, 7425cGy/33fr, and 5000cGy/25fr for the nasopharynx, prostate, and cervix cases, respectively, in both ssIMRT and dIMRT delivery techniques. Plans were generated using the Monaco treatment planning system with a 6MV photon beam and nine equidistant fields. Plan evaluation criteria included dose-volume histogram analysis, dose homogeneity index, conformity index, radiation delivery time, and monitor unit requirements.
resultsAll plans were optimized to ensure that 98% of the planning target volume (PTV) received at least 95% of the prescribed dose, while meeting the planning objectives for organs at risk. dIMRT plans exhibited superior conformity (CI = 0.85 ± 0.05) compared to ssIMRT plans (CI = 0.79 ± 0.08), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.01). Inhomogeneity within the PTV was significantly higher in ssIMRT plans (HI = 0.10 ± 0.02) compared to dIMRT plans (HI = 0.09 ± 0.01), with a significant difference (P < 0.01). Delivery time per fraction was significantly lower in dIMRT compared to ssIMRT (P < 0.01). Furthermore, dIMRT plans required a higher mean monitor unit value (1335.4 ± 172.2) compared to ssIMRT plans (974.4 ± 133.6) with a significant difference (P < 0.001).
conclusionThe findings of this study indicate that dIMRT provides improved target coverage, homogeneity, and conformity while reducing treatment delivery time compared to ssIMRT.
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.