ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Versus Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy for Single Isocenter Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Multiple Brain Metastases.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStereotactic radiosurgery is a highly precise radiotherapy technique widely used for the management of brain metastases. While VMAT enables highly conformal dose distributions, it is often associated with increased plan complexity and longer delivery times. Optimized dynamic conformal arc therapy (OptDCA) represents a less complex alternative that may achieve comparable dosimetric performance. In this retrospective study, dosimetric quality, deliverability, and plan complexity of VMAT and OptDCA were compared for single-isocenter SRS of multiple brain metastases. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty patients previously treated with VMAT were randomly selected and replanned using OptDCA with identical beam arrangements. Plan quality was evaluated using the Paddick conformity index, gradient index, target coverage, MUs, and brain V12Gy and V20Gy. Deliverability was assessed using gamma passing rates, and plan complexity was quantified using multiple complexity metrics.
resultsVMAT achieved a slightly higher CI (0.72 vs. 0.71) but required a higher number of MUs (5376 vs. 4820), while no significant differences were observed in GI or target coverage. OptDCA demonstrated significantly higher GPR (median 96.95% vs. 91.1%) and consistently lower plan complexity. Significant correlations were observed between GPR and several complexity metrics for both techniques.
conclusionOverall, OptDCA provides comparable plan quality to VMAT, while offering improved deliverability and reduced complexity, making it a viable alternative technique.
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.