ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Spiral volumetric modulated arc therapy for whole-brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost to multiple brain metastases.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. 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.
- Spiral volumetric modulated arc therapy enhances peak-to-valley dose contrast for 3D-GRID radiotherapy compared to VMAT and tomotherapy.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- A simulation study of a novel spiral volumetric modulated arc therapy for enhanced dose delivery efficiency and quality in radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2026Article
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
purposeSpiral volumetric modulated arc therapy (SVMAT) is an integrated radiation therapy technique with longitudinal couch movement to generate a spiral/helical trajectory. This approach combines the merits of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). This study aimed to investigate the treatment planning of SVMAT for whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for a large number (> 40) of metastases. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen patients with multiple brain metastases (40-120 metastases) were retrospectively enrolled. These patients had previously received treatment with HT using the WBRT + SIB technique. Prescribed doses of 40 Gy for the whole brain and 60 Gy for the metastases were delivered in 20 fractions. In this study, SVMAT plans were designed using DeepPlan (version 1.3, Wisdom Tech., Hefei, Anhui, China) as the treatment planning system for the radiotherapy machine NeuRT Aurora (Neusoft IntelliRay Technology, Shenyang, Liaoning, China). In all SVMAT plans, the patient couch was set to move out after specified multiple gantry rotations and then move in within a single treatment fraction. The number of gantry rotations ranged between 6 and 16. These SVMAT plans were compared with HT and piecewise VMAT (previously proposed PVMAT) based on a plan quality metric (PQM) comprising 20 metrics.
resultsFor target coverage and conformity index (CI) of whole brain and metastases, no significant differences were observed between the SVMAT&HT or between SVMAT&PVMAT plans (p > 0.05). The sparing of right hippocampus, optic nerves and optic chiasm were improved using the SVMAT plan compared to the HT plan (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between the SVMAT and PVMAT plans for OAR sparing (p > 0.05). The mean total scores of PQM were 51.70 ± 8.14 (mean ± standard deviation), 53.24 ± 5.84, 53.64 ± 7.16, 54.24 ± 7.06, 54.60 ± 6.30, and 55.05 ± 6.18 points for SVMAT plans with gantry rotations of 6 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16, respectively. The average score for HT was 38.18 ± 5.48 points, which was significantly lower than that for the SVMAT plans (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the mean score for PVMAT was 54.34 ± 6.48 points, and no significant differences were observed between SVMAT and PVMAT (p > 0.05). The beam delivery time was shorter for SVMAT with 6 (271.5 ± 53.7 s), 8(310.3 ± 42.9 s), and 10(359.6 ± 34.4 s) rotations compared to HT (393.0 ± 25.0 s) (p < 0.05) and also shorter for SVMAT with six rotations compared to PVMAT (312.6 ± 53.7 s) (p < 0.05).
conclusionsFor WBRT + SIB, SVMAT achieved improved plan quality and higher delivery efficiency compared with HT and had similar plan quality compared with PVMAT.
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.