ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Advanced Dynamic Arc Therapy With Collimator Rotation and Fixed Integrated Gantry Positions to the Standard of Care Across Five Treatment Sites.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated decision support tool for static angle modulated ports configuration in VMAT with dynamic collimator rotation for head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Dynamic modulated arc therapy (DMAT): A time-aware, modulation-steered optimization framework for next-generation radiotherapy delivery.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Beam geometry optimization and convergence mode evaluation for knowledge-based planning of hippocampal avoidance whole-brain radiotherapy: A cross-platform study with quantitative scorecard assessment.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Dosimetric impact of aperture-restricted VMAT on heart dose in breast cancer treated with regional nodal irradiation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Optimization of field setup for organs at risk sparing and beam on time in breast radiotherapy planning for a new volumetric modulated arc therapy based treatment technique.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Assessment of LD-V1 radiochromic film low-dose performance for mega-voltage radiotherapy quality assurance.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Integrating static angle ports and dynamic collimator rotation in volumetric modulated arc therapy for hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in Chinese females: a single-centre dosimetric study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Can knowledge-based autoplanning keep up with advances in radiotherapy optimization for oropharyngeal cancer?Frontiers in oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim To evaluate dosimetric plan quality, optimization efficiency, and delivery time of RapidArc Dynamic (RAD), a novel treatment planning approach combining dynamic gantry positions with dynamic collimator rotation and user-selected static angle modulated ports (STAMPs), compared to conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) across five anatomical treatment sites. Methods Treatment plans were developed for breast, lung, pancreas/liver, prostate, and head and neck cases. VMAT plans were first optimized following clinical guidelines and dosimetric scorecards. The same optimization objectives from the VMAT plans were applied to the RAD plans. RAD-specific variables, including STAMP selection and weighting, were systematically explored. When the best settings for RAD were found, optimization objectives were modified to further improve quality specific to each case. For equal comparison between the two techniques, the optimization objectives from the RAD plans were copied back to the VMAT plans for re-optimization. Optimization time, monitor units, number of control points, delivery time, and dosimetric plan quality were then compared. Results RAD demonstrated reduced optimization times compared to VMAT, averaging one minute and 23 seconds versus two minutes and seven seconds. Dosimetric improvements were observed across all sites: breast plans showed reduced heart mean dose (1.98 vs. 1.23 Gy) and improved dose homogeneity; lung plans achieved better heart V5Gy; prostate plans demonstrated enhanced bladder and rectum sparing at V18Gy; and head and neck plans showed improved sparing of the lips and oral cavity. Treatment delivery times were reduced in most cases, with improvements ranging from 11% to 25% in breast, lung, and head and neck. Conclusions RAD offers faster optimization times while maintaining or improving plan quality compared to VMAT. The integration of dynamic collimator rotation and strategic STAMPs can provide enhanced organ-at-risk sparing without compromising target coverage. These improvements, combined with generally reduced delivery times, suggest RAD offers a potential advancement in radiation therapy planning efficiency and plan quality.
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.