ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Dosimetric benefits of half-field arc in prostate cancer treatment.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2026. 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 aim of this study is to assess the dosimetric advantages and clinical feasibility of the Half-Field Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy technique in comparison to conventional Full-Field Arc Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. 120 Treatment plans were created for 24 prostate cancer patients using Half-Field, Full-Field, and Intensity Modulated static fields (5-, 7-, and 9-fields). The dosimetric parameters and the homogeneity index were evaluated for the different Planning Target Volumes included pelvic lymph nodes, seminal vesicles, and prostate. Additionally, the dose burden to organs at risk was assessed. The efficiency of the plans was analyzed based on monitor unit usage and the gamma index. Half-Field plans exhibited comparable target coverage to static fields while demonstrating superior homogeneity in comparison to Full-Field plans. This technique resulted in a significant reduction in bladder and rectum doses within the mid- and high-dose ranges, with a V30 for the bladder of 67.8% in Half-Field compared to 75.3% in Full-Field (p < 0.001). The Half-Field technique required a significantly fewer monitor units than the Intensitiy-Modulated technique (600.8 vs. 1172.7 for 5-field, p < 0.001) resulting in a notable reduction in treatment. Half-Field represents an effective combination of the dosimetric precision of static Intensity Modulated fields with the efficiency of Full-Field arc therapy, offering a promising alternative for prostate cancer treatment. The technique ensures reduced organ at risks doses, enhanced treatment homogeneity and lower complexity, making it a viable option for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy protocols.
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.