ArticleCureus2025
A Dosimetric Comparison of Coplanar Versus Noncoplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for High Grade Glioma.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the dosimetric differences in radiotherapy plans generated by coplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy (cVMAT) and noncoplanar volumetric-modulated arc therapy (NcVMAT) for high-grade gliomas. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis is a single-institutional, prospective, observational study conducted during a period of one year from December 2018 to October 2019. A total of 15 consecutive patients with high-grade gliomas who planned to receive postoperative radiotherapy were included in the study. Plans were generated using both cVMAT and NcVMAT for each patient. The plans were evaluated per the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 83 criteria. A dosimetric comparison of each plan was made in terms of target coverage and dose to organs at risk (OARs).
resultsOn analyzing the results, the two techniques resulted in comparable maximum, mean, and minimum planning target volume (PTV) doses. There were statistically insignificant numerical differences observed in the conformity index (CI) and heterogeneity index (HI). Maximum optic chiasma and ipsilateral cochlea doses were statistically lower in the NcVMAT plan compared to the cVMAT plan (p-value = 0.002). The NcVMAT plans had insignificant differences in monitor units (MU) per fraction.
conclusionThis study highlights equal PTV coverage, homogeneity, and conformity indices between cVMAT and NcVMAT plans. A better dosimetric profile of the optic chiasma, cochlea, and equal MU per fraction favors the NcVMAT technique for treating high-grade gliomas.
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.