ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Simultaneous integrated boost in locally advanced cervical cancer patients ineligible for brachytherapy: Dosimetric comparison of VMAT versus helical tomotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Simultaneous integrated boost in locally advanced cervical cancer patients ineligible for brachytherapy: Dosimetric comparison of VMAT versus helical tomotherapy.Journal of applied clinical 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective, exploratory study evaluated the dosimetric comparison and feasibility of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) delivered with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer ineligible for brachytherapy (BRT).
methodsThis exploratory study involved dosimetric treatment planning based on data from 10 patients diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer. SIB plans delivering 77.5 Gy to the primary tumor and 45 Gy to elective regions in 25 fractions were generated using VMAT and HT techniques. SIB plans were created using the VMAT technique in the Monaco 5.51 treatment planning system (TPS) (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and the HT technique in the Precision 3.3.1 TPS (Accuray, Madison, Wisconsin, USA). Planning target volume (PTV) coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and dose-volume metrics of SIB plans were compared between the VMAT and HT techniques using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsThe median PTV77.5 volume was 83.4 cc (range: 14.9-218.2 cc). For PTV77.5, HT yielded a higher mean dose (79.52 Gy vs. 77.54 Gy, p = 0.001) and a superior conformity index (0.81 vs. 0.71, p < 0.001). Bladder dose metrics were significantly lower with HT, including V53.28 Gy (5.66% vs. 10.31%; p = 0.006) and D
conclusionsBRT remains the standard of care for cervical cancer. For patients ineligible for BRT, SIB is dosimetrically feasible; in this exploratory planning study, HT-SIB provided better target coverage and OAR sparing than VMAT-SIB. Prospective multicenter validation is necessary before wider clinical adoption.
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.