ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Dosimetric Comparison of Noncoplanar VMAT Without Rotating the Patient Couch Versus Conventional Coplanar/Noncoplanar VMAT for Head and Neck Cancer: First Report of Dynamic Swing Arc.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Helical intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs. C-arm-based volumetric modulated arc therapy for sinonasal tumours: organ at risk sparing and treatment efficiency.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Beyond Couch Correction in Head and Neck Radiotherapy: A Narrative Review of Action-Oriented Positioning Management.Cancers · 2026Review
- Initial Experience With Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Refractory Trigeminal Neuralgia Using the OXRAY System.Cureus · 2026Article
- Dosimetric advantages of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using biaxially rotational dynamic radiation therapy compared with coplanar VMAT in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy with focal boost.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Commissioning of an expanded-field radiation technique using a gimbal-mounted linear accelerator.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Dosimetric validation of biaxially rotational dynamic-radiation therapy using an O-ring linear accelerator.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of a second-generation O-ring-shaped image-guided radiotherapy system with a gimbal-mounted linear accelerator and real-time tracking capabilities.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric and robustness evaluation of biaxially rotational dynamic radiation therapy with robust optimization.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective planning study aimed to verify the usefulness of a clinically available method, dynamic swing arc (DSA), a noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, of the new accelerator OXRAY for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We performed dosimetric comparisons between DSA and conventional coplanar/noncoplanar VMAT (C-VMAT/NC-VMAT) plans for HNSCC. Methods and Materials: We selected 32 patients with oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer treated with C-VMAT at National Cancer Center Hospital East between September 2018 and July 2023. DSA and C/NC-VMAT plans were generated using OXRAY and TrueBeam, respectively. DSA employed noncoplanar 2-arc beams with an O-ring gantry swing, whereas C-VMAT and NC-VMAT used coplanar and noncoplanar 2-arc beams, respectively. Dosimetric parameters, normal tissue complication probability, and delivery times were compared pairwise using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction. Results: For high-risk planning target volume (PTV), D98 values in NC-VMAT plans were closest to the prescribed dose, significantly differing from C-VMAT and DSA plans. DSA plans showed significantly better median conformity and homogeneity indices (0.97 and 7.33, respectively) compared to C-VMAT (0.95 and 8.36) and NC-VMAT (0.96 and 7.96) plans. DSA plans significantly reduced the mean ipsilateral/contralateral parotid gland dose by 5.78/6.93 and 2.88/1.56 Gy (median) compared to C-VMAT and NC-VMAT. NC-VMAT and DSA plans significantly decreased the mean oral cavity dose by 2.16 and 3.22 Gy (median) compared to C-VMAT. DSA plans had the lowest median normal tissue complication for xerostomia with significant differences, followed by NC-VMAT and C-VMAT. The delivery time for DSA plans was longer than VMAT (151 seconds vs 124 seconds), but shorter than NC-VMAT. Conclusions: DSA plans using OXRAY for HNSCC maintained PTV coverage while reducing parotid gland and oral cavity mean doses compared to coplanar VMAT plans, although delivery times increased. DSA plans reduced parotid gland doses and delivery times compared to noncoplanar VMAT plans.
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.