ArticleMedicine2025
Dosimetric study on the effect of minimum distance between optimization structures and planning target volume on small intestine dose in cervical cancer VMAT plans.
Article in Medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cervical cancer radiotherapy often faces challenges in managing gastrointestinal toxicities, particularly due to the dose received by the small intestine. This study investigates the impact of optimization structure margins (1.2-2.4 cm) on reducing small intestine dose and improving plan quality in patients with mean small intestine doses (Dmean_INT) exceeding 25 Gy. A total of 27 cervical cancer patients treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy were retrospectively analyzed. Iterative constraint adjustments were applied to optimization structures at varying distances from the planning target volume (PTV). Five optimization margins (0.6, 1.2, 1.8, 2.4, and 3.0 cm) were created by volumetrically excluding small intestine regions proximal to PTV, with iterative dose constraints. Each plan was named RrIi, where r represents the cutting distance of the optimization structure and i represents the iteration number (ranging from 4-8). Results demonstrated that all optimized plans achieved significant reductions in Dmean_INT compared to the original plans (ORI group), with reductions ranging from 1.21 to 1.83 Gy (P < .001). The R_1.2I_5.5 protocol achieved the most favorable balance, reducing Dmean_INT by 1.23 Gy, corresponding to a 15% to 22% relative risk reduction for Grade ≥ 2 enteritis. Smaller margins (1.2 cm) effectively reduced intermediate-high-dose regions (e.g., V40Gy), while larger margins (2.4 cm) better controlled low-dose regions (e.g., V15Gy), supporting tailored clinical decision-making based on patient characteristics. In conclusion, optimization structure margins of 1.2 to 2.4 cm provide a clinically meaningful framework for reducing small intestine dose while preserving PTV coverage, advancing cervical cancer radiotherapy planning.
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.