ArticleScientific reports2025
Dosimetric evaluation of field parameters in VMAT for cervical cancer with inguinal lymphatic drainage extension.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
For cervical cancer radiotherapy, patients requiring inguinal lymphatic drainage (ILD) extension fields pose challenges due to the large and complex target volume. To investigate the dosimetric effects of x-jaw width, jaw aperture position, and the number of arcs on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for ILD extension fields, in order to optimize treatment planning. Thirty-nine patients were retrospectively included, and seven VMAT planning groups were created: OF (open field), X = 15/16/17/18 (jaw widths of 15-18 cm), SP (split-field, four arcs), and X = 15 M (jaw aperture moved toward the isocenter). Dosimetric parameters, including homogeneity index (HI), target coverage, and organs-at-risk (OARs) doses, were compared. The X = 15 plan achieved significantly lower intestinal, bladder, and rectal doses compared to the X = 17 and X = 18 plans (p < 0.05). The SP plan demonstrated superior HI and OARs sparing compared to the X = 15 plan, but required longer treatment times. The X = 15 M plan resulted in reduced edge doses but increased intestinal and bladder doses. For cervical cancer ILD extension fields, dual-arc VMAT plans with a 15 cm jaw width (X = 15) are recommended for optimal balance between target coverage and OARs sparing. Split-field plans may be considered if extended treatment time is acceptable.
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.