SynthesisRecent patents on anti-cancer drug discovery2026
Dosimetry Comparison of 3D Conformal Radiotherapy and Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Brain Tumors: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Recent patents on anti-cancer drug discovery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate IMRT and 3D-CRT in the therapy of brain tumor (BT) in relation to dose-volume histograms (DVHs) parameters, such as Heterogeneity Index (HI), Conformity index (CI), Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD), and mean dose (Dmean) outcomes, including the program for the tumors of the brain and estimate whether a favored procedure can be found through the features of the pretreatment.
methodA search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase datasets from their beginnings from January 2006 to September 2022 was conducted. The authors separately selected and evaluated studies for qualifying criteria and bias risk. RESULT AND DISCUSSION: Seven studies in total were included. Of them, a total of 387 patients were integrated for the Heterogeneity index (HI), Conformity Index (CI), Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD), and mean dose (Dmean) comparison analysis, which showed 3D-CRT & IMRT with odd ratio (OR) =1.93; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) =1.63, 2.22; and P value=0.00. For brain tumor patients, CI was higher in IMRT than 3D-CRT with OR= 0.72; 95% CI =0.41, 1.03; p value <0.001. EUD was higher in IMRT than 3D-CRT, resulting in an increased overall survival with OR=-0.86; 95% CI =-1.30, 0.42; and p value<0.001. However, no statistically significant variance was perceived in Dmean between 3D-CRT and IMRT.
conclusionOur records suggested that IMRT with conventional linacs results in a meaningfully lower regular percentage of brain tumor volumes compared to 3D-CRT. Finally, this meta-analysis indicated that IMRT is better than 3D-CRT and decreases the average percent irradiated amount of the brain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39473204What 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.