ArticleScientific reports2025
Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluation of stereotactic radiosurgery using volumetric modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc therapy for multiple brain metastases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Versus Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy for Single Isocenter Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Multiple Brain Metastases.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents a clinical comparison of the target dose, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and plan quality between volumetric modulated conformal arc therapy (VMAT) against dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) techniques to facilitate clinical decision-making in multiple brain metastases (MBM) treatment. A total of 11 cases having 33 lesions were recruited at the Union Oncology Centre, Union Hospital, Hong Kong SAR. With CT images available, all plans were optimized using both HyperArc (HA) and Brainlab Elements Multiple Brain Metastases (Elements MBM). Target coverage, normal tissue sparing, and dose distribution were compared pairwise between VMAT and DCAT. Results showed that the plans generated using both techniques achieved adequate target coverage to meet up with the oncologist's prescription. With similar levels of NTCP, the normal brain received low doses of radiation using both techniques and the risk of brain necrosis was kept equally low. This indicated that VMAT and DCAT produced similar high-quality treatment plans with low risks of brain necrosis. Meanwhile, VMAT showed better homogeneity which could potentially be more useful for large targets, while DCAT showed better target conformity especially for targets smaller than 1 cc. In general, both HA and Elements MBM demonstrated ability to generate high-quality clinical plans.
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.