ArticlePeerJ2025
Comparative dosimetric evaluation of single-beam dual-arc
Article in PeerJ, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: In stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer, the choice of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) optimization strategy is critical for achieving optimal target dose coverage while minimizing exposure to normal tissues. This study aims to compare the dosimetric performance and plan complexity of two VMAT optimization strategies in Monaco: single-beam dual-arc (1B2A) versus dual-beam single-arc (2B1A). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 50 lung cancer patients treated with SBRT (prescription dose: 50 Gy in 5 fractions). Two VMAT plans were re-optimized using the Monaco treatment planning system: the 1B2A plan (single-beam dual-arc, collimator angle 10°) and the 2B1A plan (dual-beam single-arc, collimator angles 10° and 350°). Dosimetric parameters, including target dose coverage, conformity index (CI), and gradient index (GI), were evaluated for the internal target volume (ITV) and planning target volume (PTV). Dose metrics for organs at risk (OARs) were also analyzed. Plan complexity was assessed based on monitor units (MU), number of control points, complexity index, and integral dose to normal tissues. Results: Significant dosimetric differences were observed between the two strategies. When normalized to ensure the prescribed 50 Gy isodose line covers 95% of the PTV volume, the high-dose parameters (D1%, D50%, Dmean) of the ITV and PTV were significantly lower in the 1B2A group compared to the 2B1A group ( Conclusions: In peripheral lung cancer SBRT, the dual-beam single-arc (2B1A) strategy offers superior target dose distribution and treatment efficiency, making it a preferable optimization approach.
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.