ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Effect of Multi-Leaf Collimator Angle Optimization on the Planning Parameters in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Thoracic Tumors.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionTo investigate the effect of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) angle optimization on the planning parameters in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for thoracic tumors.MethodsForty-two patients (21 esophageal cancer, 21 lung cancer) were retrospectively enrolled. For each patient, two IMRT plans were designed in Eclipse treatment planning system: one with the MLC angle set to 0°, which triggered automatic field splitting due to excessive X-jaw aperture; the other with the MLC angle adjusted to keep the X-jaw aperture below 13.8 cm, thereby avoiding field splitting. The homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of target volume, doses of organs at risk (OARs), monitor units (MUs) and treatment time were compared. Dose verification was performed.ResultsFor both esophageal and lung cancer patients, the two groups of plans met the clinical requirements and the dose distribution of target volume was similar. Compared with the plan of the MLC at 0°, the number of MUs and the treatment time were significantly reduced by adjusting the MLC angle to avoid automatic field splitting by the planning system. The average number of MUs in esophageal cancer and lung cancer patients was reduced from 1015.7 ± 162.8 and 1122.0 ± 315.3 to 853.3 ± 113.0 and 886.5 ± 264.8, respectively, and the average treatment time was shortened from 1.6 ± 0.3 min and 1.8 ± 0.6 min to 1.4 ± 0.2 min and 1.5 ± 0.5 min, respectively. The D
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.