Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41503561›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2025

Craniospinal irradiation planning and delivery: a comparison between Halcyon Ring Gantry and TrueBeam C Arm LINAC delivery systems.

Venugopal Sundaram, D Khanna, P Mohandass, Rekha Arya, Nilotpal Chakravarty

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Venugopal SundaramDivision of Physical Sciences, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, India.
D KhannaDivision of Physical Sciences, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore, India.
P MohandassDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fortis Hospital Mohali, Mohali, India.
Rekha AryaRadiation Oncology, Yashoda Superspeciality Hospital and Cancer Institute, Ghaziabad, India.
Nilotpal ChakravartyRadiation Oncology, Yashoda Superspeciality Hospital and Cancer Institute, Ghaziabad, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This research assesses the dosimetric differences in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) between True- Beam Materials and methods: The fifteen patients retrospectively chosen for this study were treated with the TrueBeam linear accelerator between 2020 and 2023. Initially, VMAT patient plans were planned and delivered in TrueBeam (TB6X), and using the same objective function, TB6FFF and Halcyon™ (HAL6FFF) plans were generated. Plans were compared dosimetrically using dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters for the cranial, spine targets and Organs At Risk (OARs) in the treatment planning system (TPS). The different dose dosimetric criteria were evaluated such as dose received by D Results: Brain PTV dose received by 95% of the PTV volume (D Conclusions: Clinically and dosimetrically acceptable VMAT-based craniospinal irradiation plans can be generated by the newly introduced dual-layer Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) model in a Halcyon™ linac.

Indexed as

CSIdual layer MLCHalcyonTMTrueBeamTMvolumetric modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID41503561
PMCPMC12772944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.