ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Dosimetric and treatment efficiency comparison of lung SBRT using three different motion management strategies.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2026. 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.
- Systematic gravity-induced posterior tumour drift in free-breathing lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the dosimetry and treatment efficiency of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using the deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH), free breathing (FB), and respiratory gating (RG) strategies. Methods and Materials: 308 lung SBRT patients with middle to lower zone lung tumors were included in this retrospective study. The prescriptions were 1000 cGy x 5 fractions, 1200 cGy x 4 fractions, or 1800 cGy x 3 fractions. They were all treated with a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam on C-arm linear accelerators, but using different motion management strategies (151 DIBH, 136 FB, 21 RG). The lung dose (mean lung dose (MLD), V5, V20) and treatment time (on table, imaging & verification, delivery) of these patients were retrospectively collected for statistical comparison. Results: The average doses (MLD, V5, V20) to the ipsilateral lung were 408.2 cGy, 20.1 %, 5.7 % for the DIBH cohort, 569.8 cGy, 27.6 %, 8.4 % for the FB cohort, and 519.6 cGy, 23.5 %, 7.5 % for the RG patients. Correspondingly, the average time (on table/imaging & verification/delivery) for the three patient cohorts was 22.3/16.0/6.3 min, 13.6/10.5/3.1 min, and 22.7/14.6/8.1 min, respectively. Conclusion: Quantitative comparison of lung dose and treatment efficiency for three commonly used motion management strategies in lung SBRT is reported. While the relative advantages and disadvantages of these strategies are well recognized, our findings further confirm these differences and provide clinicians with quantitative data to support informed decision-making in clinical practice.
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.