ArticlePloS one2025
Impact of monitor unit optimization in volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Regional patterns of incidental pelvic nodal irradiation during bladder-only radiotherapy: A paired dosimetric analysis of VMAT and IMRT.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Effect of Multi-Leaf Collimator Angle Optimization on the Planning Parameters in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Thoracic Tumors.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the impact of monitor units (MUs) optimization on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).
methodsTwenty-one NPC patients were retrospectively analyzed. Dual-arc VMAT plan were designed using photon optimization algorithms without the monitor unit objective (MUO) tool, denoted as the base plan. Each base plan was re-optimized with the MUO tool with the Maximum MU parameter set to 30% of the base plans' total MUs and Strength parameters set to 50, 80, and 100, generating plans S50, S80, and S100. Target and organ-at-risk (OAR) dose distributions, MUs, beam delivery time, and gamma passing rates were compared between re-optimized and base plans. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 17.0 (paired t-tests; significance: P < 0.05).
resultsPlan S100 reduced target PCTV2 D98% by >4% (relative to the base plan) in four patients. Plan S80 reduced target PGTV and PGTVnd Dmax and target PCTV2 D98% for >3% but <4% in two patients, while other target dose parameters changed by <2%. Compared to the base plan, all re-optimized plans increased the brainstem Dmax (P < 0.05), though the maximum increase was < 1.5%. Plan S50 reduced both parotid glands D50% and Dmean (P < 0.001), while plan S80 reduced both parotids Dmean and the left parotid D50% (P < 0.001). Conversely, S100 increased both parotids D50% and Dmean and the spinal cord Dmax (P < 0.05). Plan S80 and S100 increased the thyroid V40 (P < 0.05). MU reductions averaged 5.1% (S50), 21.4% (S80), and 30.9% (S100), with consistent beam delivery times (~2.5 minutes). Gamma passing rates improved sequentially from the base plan to S50, S80, and S100.
conclusionMU optimization in NPC VMAT planning effectively reduces MUs and enhances delivery accuracy (improved gamma passing rates). While target coverage and OAR sparing were generally maintained, higher MUO strengths (e.g., S100) may necessitate careful consideration of dosimetric trade-offs. Moderate MUO settings (e.g., S80) offer a favorable balance between MU reduction and plan fidelity.
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.