ArticleRadiation oncology journal2025
Dosimetric analysis of different whole brain radiotherapy treatment planning methods: three types of 3-dimensional versus hippocampal avoidant.
Article in Radiation oncology journal, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur purpose was to compare four whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) delivery types: opposed lateral (OL) 3-dimensional-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), a novel opposed lateral sparing (OLS) 3D-CRT technique, 3D optimized dynamic conformal arcs (optDCA), and hippocampal-avoidant WBRT (HA-WBRT). MATERIALS AND
methodsTen patients previously undergoing HA-WBRT were retrospectively planned using OL, OLS, and optDCA techniques. OLS technique involved multi-leaf collimator (MLC) modifications to protect the lacrimal and parotid glands. OptDCA was inverse-planned 3D-CRT with dynamic conformal arcs. A dosimetric, cost, and resource utilization comparison was performed.
resultsPlanning target volume coverage to prescription dose between 3D planning techniques was not significantly different between OL and OLS techniques (96.8% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.855), or between OL, OLS, and optDCA (95.0%) techniques (p = 0.079). There was no difference in the heterogeneity index between 3D plans (p = 0.482); all were less heterogeneous than HA-WBRT (p < 0.001). OptDCA was more conformal than OL and OLS, and similar in conformity to HA-WBRT. OLS achieved significant sparing of lacrimal and parotid glands over OL. There were significant step-function reductions in organ at risk (OAR) dose when comparing OL to OLS to optDCA to HA-WBRT plans. HA-WBRT was 57% more expensive than OL and OLS technique. HA-WBRT took approximately six times longer to plan.
conclusionWe showed adequate and equivalent target coverage using OL, OLS, and optDCA techniques. Lacrimal and parotid dosages can be greatly reduced with the implementation of minor MLC adjustments. OptDCA therapy represented further improvement of these modifications, and was comparable to HA-WBRT in terms of OAR dose, while being about two-thirds the cost and more efficient to plan.
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.