ArticleCureus2025
Retrospective Analysis of Dosimetric Comparison Between Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy in Patients With Esophageal Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
Introduction Esophageal cancer is a significant global health concern, with high incidence and mortality rates, particularly in India, where it ranks among the top causes of cancer-related deaths. Radiotherapy plays a critical role in the treatment of advanced-stage esophageal cancer. This study aims to compare the dosimetric outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to evaluate their efficacy and safety in managing mid-esophageal carcinoma. Materials and methods A retrospective study was carried out on thirty patients with middle-third esophageal cancer who received treatment at Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital, Bareilly, India. The patients, aged between 50 and 70 years (mean age of 66.5 years), were in stages II to III of cancer according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 2018 guidelines. All patients had histologically confirmed cases of moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. The treatment procedure included immobilization using a thoracic mold, CT simulation with intravenous and oral contrast, and contouring of the gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), and organs at risk (OARs) following the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0436 protocol. VMAT planning was done using the Varian Eclipse™ Treatment Planning System, while IMRT planning employed a seven-field non-coplanar beam setup. Comparative virtual IMRT plans were generated for these patients. Both VMAT and IMRT plans were evaluated based on dosimetric parameters for the PTV and OARs. Results Both VMAT and IMRT achieved sufficient PTV coverage, with no statistically significant differences in dosimetric parameters (dose to 99 % volume of PTV, dose to 95 %volume of PTV, maximum dose to PTV, minimum dose to PTV). VMAT demonstrated reduced lung and heart doses compared to IMRT; however, the observed differences were not statistically significant. There was a reduction in lung dose with VMAT when evaluating the dose-volume constraints: volume receiving 15 Gy dose (V15) by 11%, volume receiving 20 Gy dose (V20) by 20%, and volume receiving 25 Gy dose (V25) by 41%, though these differences were not statistically significant. The mean maximum spinal cord dose was significantly lower with VMAT (19.69 Gy) compared to IMRT (30.80 Gy, p=0.01). Heart dosimetry showed slight improvements with VMAT, particularly in volume receiving 30 Gy dose (V30), volume receiving 40 Gy dose (V40), and mean heart dose, though these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion Both VMAT and IMRT provided similar PTV coverage. VMAT showed a reduction in spinal cord dose, which was statistically significant, and a trend toward lower lung and heart doses, though these differences were not statistically significant. VMAT appears to be an effective option for treating mid-esophageal carcinoma while reducing exposure to critical organs.
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.