ArticleJournal of medical physics
Assessment of Organ-at-risk Sparing in Esophageal Cancer: A Comparative Dosimetric Evaluation of Hybrid, Noncoplanar, and Coplanar RapidArc Plans.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
- Rotational arc treatments with static ports and dynamic collimation reduces cardiopulmonary dose for esophageal cancer patients and diminishes model-based predicted benefit of proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study is to improve the precision of radiation treatment and sparing of organ-at-risk (OAR) in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer (EC) affecting the heart, lung, and spinal cord. To improve and personalize cancer treatment plans, it assesses the dosimetric benefits of coplanar RapidArc (RA Materials and Methods: Fourteen patients with EC were chosen for our investigation from our hospital's database. RapidArc (RA) plan patients had already received treatment. Retrospectively, additional RA Results: In comparison to RA Conclusion: The D95%, conformity, and homogeneity indices were better for hybrid arc plans compared to RA
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.