ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Comparative Evaluation of Dosimetric Quality and Treatment Efficiency for Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy in Cervical-Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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.
- Changing landscape of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Breakthroughs in systemic therapies (Review).Oncology reports · 2025Review
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
introductionThis study primarily aims to investigate the suitability of Halcyon in the context of cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer by exploring the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of Halcyon plans with different arc configurations. Additionally, it compares these findings with the dosimetric indices and delivery efficiency of TrueBeam and TomoTherapy accelerators, focusing on their capability to optimize protection for organs at risk (OARs) while maintaining efficient treatment delivery strategies.
methodsThis retrospective study involved 26 patients diagnosed with cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer, and new radiotherapy plans were created using Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy. Dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics and delivery efficiency for plans involving different arc numbers on Halcyon (2, 3, and 4 arcs) were compared with those from TrueBeam and TomoTherapy. T-tests were employed to evaluate differences in organ protection among the accelerators.
resultsThe Halcyon plans, especially those with 4 arcs, provided superior protection for organs at risk, including the heart, lungs, and spinal cord, while maintaining excellent delivery efficiency. Compared to TrueBeam 2arc plans and TomoTherapy helical plans, Halcyon plans with 3 arcs also showed slight advantages. Although TomoTherapy offered better uniformity in dose distribution, it did not demonstrate a clear advantage over the other accelerators in terms of OAR protection or treatment efficiency. Furthermore, despite the lack of clear advantages in TrueBeam 2arc plans with flattening filter (FF), TrueBeam with flattening filter free (FFF) plans may hold potential in the treatment.
conclusionHalcyon, particularly with 4 arcs, offers an optimal balance between reducing toxicity to organs at risk and maintaining treatment efficiency, making it a preferred choice in cervical thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy. The findings highlight the need for careful selection of radiotherapy accelerators based on specific clinical goals, with Halcyon showing potential advantages in scenarios where both treatment efficiency and OAR protection are paramount.
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.