Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40151878›Full record

ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment

Comparative Dosimetry and Biological Risk Assessment of Lung Oligometastasis SBRT: VMAT, Helical Tomotherapy, and CyberKnife.

Zhenjiong Shen, Mingyuan Pan, Lan Sun, Aihui Feng, Yanhua Duan, Hengle Gu, Yan Shao, Hua Chen, Hao Wang, Ying Huang and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Zhenjiong ShenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Mingyuan PanRadiation Oncology Center, Huashan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6070-2528
Lan SunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Aihui FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yanhua DuanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hengle GuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yan ShaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hua ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hao WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7984-6054
Ying HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Zhiyong XuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4238-0318

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the dosimetry and biological risk of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), helical tomotherapy (HT) and cyberKnife (CK) in the treatment of lung oligometastases.Methods and materialsThis retrospective study included a cohort of 21 lung oligometastasis patients, each with 2 or 3 lesions, who had previously undergone stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). VMAT, HT and CK plans were made for each patient. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated. Three biological risks were evaluated, namely radiation pneumonitis (RP), coronary artery disease (CAD) and congestive heart failure (CHF). Monitor Units (MUs) and beam-on-time were also recorded.ResultsAll techniques were able to produce clinically deliverable plans. The expected biological risks for VMAT plans, CK plans, and HT plans were 6.69%, 5.05%, 5.88% for RP, 1.20%, 1.15%, and 1.17% for CAD, 1.26%, 1.19%, and 1.22% for CHF. The expected risks of RP were slightly lower in CK plans compared to VMAT and HT plans (p < 0.001), with VMAT plans showing the highest expected risks. For central lung cancer, the expected CAD risks of CK and HT plans were lower than those of VMAT plans (p < 0.05). The delivery efficiency of VMAT plans was significantly higher than that of CK plans and HT plans.ConclusionsAll three techniques, VMAT, HT, and CK, meet the therapeutic requirements for target coverage and dose constraints for OARs. Although there are statistical differences, the difference between the expected risk values of RP and CAD is very small, so the clinical manifestations may not show differences.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgans at RiskRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessmentbiological riskCyberKnifeHelical Tomotherapylung oligometastasisstereotactic body radiation therapyvolumetric modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID40151878
PMCPMC11951914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.