ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and non-coplanar fixed field intensity modulated radiation therapy in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost for brain metastases.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric differences between non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non-coplanar fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost (HA-WBRT+SIB) for brain metastases using the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). Method: A total of 22 patients with brain metastases were retrospectively enrolled. Two radiotherapy treatment plans were designed for each patient: non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT. The dose distribution of targets and organs at risk (OAR), the number of monitor units (MUs), and pre-treatment plan verification were compared between the two plans while meeting the prescribed dose requirements of the target volume. Results: There were no significant differences in V Conclusion: Both non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT based on the Monaco TPS produce clinically acceptable results for HA-WBRT+SIB in patients with brain metastases. Compared with IMRT, VMAT has better dose distribution in the target volume and treatment efficiency, but IMRT can better protect the hippocampus and reduce the number of MUs.
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.