ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Dosimetric Comparison of Coplanar, Non-coplanar, and Mixed-Arc VMAT for Head and Face Skin Cancers: A Multi-scenario Analysis.
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Meta-analysis on Interventional Metrics of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement With Cone-beam Computed Tomography Guidance and Fluoroscopy Guidance.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Cerebral Radionecrosis Following Stereotactic Irradiation of Skull Bone Metastases: A Diagnostic Pitfall to Be Aware of.Diagnostics (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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: This study compared dosimetric differences in target coverage and organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing among coplanar (co-VMAT), non-coplanar (nonco-VMAT), and mixed-arc (mxd-VMAT) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for stereotactic radiation treatment of head and face skin cancers (HFSC). Patients and Methods: Five patients with HFSC, presenting with tumors located in critical areas near OARs were selected to represent distinct clinical scenarios. At least three competing VMAT plans per case (up to five for extensive tumors) were generated. The planning target volume (PTV) was obtained by applying a 1 mm isotropic expansion to the clinical target volume (CTV), except for portions extending beyond the body contour. Dosimetric parameters, including PTV indices [Dmax, D2%, D98%, V95%, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI)], dose to surrounding healthy tissues, beam-on time (BOT), and monitor units (MU) were evaluated and compared under identical optimization conditions. Results: Nonco-VMAT improved CI, HI, and OAR sparing for the first (left temporal-zygomatic) and third (nasal pyramid) patients. For the second patient (right frontal and zygomatic targets), mxd-VMAT was optimal for the frontal target, while nonco-VMAT was superior for the zygomatic target. Co-VMAT provided the highest plan quality for the fourth (occipital) patient, though mxd-VMAT slightly reduced OAR doses. For the fifth patient (scalp and vertex), co-VMAT achieved the best balance between target coverage and OAR sparing. Conclusion: This study highlights the potential benefits of non-coplanar arcs in HFSC treatment. VMAT arc arrangement should be tailored to tumor location, as the inclusion of non-coplanar arcs can enhance plan quality for both target coverage and OAR protection in specific cases. However, non-coplanar techniques may prolong treatment duration due to couch rotations and increased MU, potentially reducing patient tolerability.
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.