ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Dosimetric analysis of orthogonal collimator configuration in volumetric modulated arc therapy planning: a comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), collimator angle selection impacts dose distribution and plan quality. Conventional VMAT plans use dual arcs with collimators set at 0˚. This study explores the dosimetric effects of using orthogonal collimator angles (0˚ and 90˚) in dual-arc VMAT. Methods: Sixty patients with head and neck, thoracic, and abdominal tumors were analyzed. Two VMAT plans were generated: Plan A (0˚ collimator angle) and Plan B (0˚ and 90˚ collimator angles). Dosimetric endpoints included conformity index (CI), gradient measure (GM), homogeneity index (HI), dose to organs at risk (OARs), mean dose to normal tissues (D Results: Plan B improved dosimetric outcomes over Plan A. HI decreased by 0.03 in the rectum, 0.01 in the breast, and 0.01 in the larynx. GM decreased by 0.15 cm in the rectum, 0.05 cm in the breast, and 0.01 cm in the larynx. OAR doses were reduced across sites, with notable decreases in the bladder (-4.62 Gy), left anterior descending artery (-3.99 Gy), and spinal cord (-1.79 Gy). D Conclusion: Incorporating orthogonal collimator angles (0˚ and 90˚) in dual-arc VMAT enhances dose conformity and spares OARs without compromising target coverage or delivery accuracy. This approach is clinically applicable with minimal workflow changes.
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.