ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
Impact of Minimum Segment Width on VMAT Plan Quality for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society. 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
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the impact of the minimum segment width (MSW) on the plan quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), seeking to identify the optimal MSW and provide clinical references for VMAT plan design in NPC. Methods: The planning CT images of 40 NPC patients treated in our institution between January 2019 and March 2019 were retrospectively selected, including 8 cases of T1, 11 of T2, 12 of T3, and 9 of T4 stage. Target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated according to ICRU Reports 50, 62, and 83. To ensure consistency in plan optimization, a priority-classified optimization model was utilized to classify all targets and OARs into four priority levels: the brainstem, spinal cord, optic chiasm, and optic nerves were assigned Level I; the planning target volume (PTV) and temporal lobes were Level II; the eyes, lenses, and pituitary gland were Level III; and the parotid glands, mandible, temporomandibular joints (TMJs), thyroid, inner ears, and oral cavity were Level IV. During the optimization process, Level I OARs were strictly prioritized first, followed sequentially by Levels II to IV. Four VMAT plans were generated for each patient using the Monaco 6.00.11 treatment planning system (TPS), with the MSW parameter set to 0.5 cm, 0.8 cm, 1.0 cm, and 1.5 cm, respectively, while keeping other physical parameters identical. Dosimetric differences in PTVs and OARs were compared among the four groups to evaluate the effect of varying MSWs on plan quality. Results: All VMAT plans achieved successful optimization while strictly meeting the prescription dose constraints for Level I OARs. For patients with T1-2 stage, the prescription dose coverage for all PTVs exceeded 95% across the four groups. As the MSW increased, the D2, D50, D95, and homogeneity index (HI) of the targets significantly increased ( Conclusions: The MSW significantly affects the quality of VMAT plans for NPC. For T1-2 patients, all four MSW groups achieved >95% PTV coverage; while MSWs of 0.5 cm and 0.8 cm provided better sparing of the parotid glands, the 0.8 cm MSW required a shorter treatment time. Therefore, an MSW of 0.8 cm is recommended for T1-2 patients. For T3-4 patients, none of the plans achieved 95% PTV coverage; thus, advanced higher-precision radiotherapy modalities are recommended. However, if VMAT is clinically selected, an MSW of 0.5 cm is recommended for plan design to maximize target coverage.
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.