ArticleOncology letters2025
Retrospective comparisons of the dosimetric differences between coplanar and non-coplanar volume-modulated arc therapy in patients with pediatric brainstem glioma.
Article in Oncology letters, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the dosimetric characteristics of non-coplanar (NC) and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of pediatric brainstem glioma, to inform clinical decision-making and improve therapeutic strategies. A retrospective analysis was performed on 10 pediatric patients diagnosed with brainstem glioma who received radiotherapy at Department of Radiotherapy, Fujian Children's Hospital (Fuzhou, China). Using the Eclipse 15.5 treatment planning system, both coplanar VMAT and NC-VMAT plans were generated for each patient. Key dosimetric parameters, including the conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), dose to organs at risk, γ passing rate and treatment time, were compared between the two planning approaches. Compared with standard VMAT, NC-VMAT demonstrated significantly improved dosimetric performance in target coverage, with superior CI (1.045±0.003 vs. 1.095±0.010; P<0.01) and HI (0.066±0.003 vs. 0.849±0.004; P<0.001). NC-VMAT also resulted in significantly reduced radiation doses to critical structures, including the left (L) and right (R) lenses (lens-L: 2.89±0.30 Gy vs. 4.13±0.40 Gy; lens-R: 2.94±0.27 Gy vs. 4.07±0.32 Gy; P<0.05), cochleae (cochlea-L: 35.20±1.97 Gy vs. 42.03±2.21 Gy; cochlea-R: 36.71±1.64 Gy vs. 42.18±1.54 Gy; P<0.001) and optic chiasm (45.11±0.62 Gy vs. 50.63±0.40 Gy; P<0.05). However, standard VMAT showed better sparing of the temporal lobes (TLs) (TL-L: 19.77±1.55 Gy vs. 24.91±0.88 Gy; TL-R: 19.61±1.44 Gy vs. 24.77±0.86 Gy; P<0.005) and normal brain tissue (13.98±0.10 Gy vs. 15.40±0.17 Gy; P<0.001). In conclusion, NC-VMAT demonstrates clear dosimetric advantages in the radiotherapeutic management of pediatric brainstem gliomas. These findings may contribute meaningfully to improving the precision, safety and clinical outcomes of radiotherapy for children affected by this challenging condition.
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.