Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42347872›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2026

Helical intensity-modulated radiation therapy vs. C-arm-based volumetric modulated arc therapy for sinonasal tumours: organ at risk sparing and treatment efficiency.

Sandeep Singh, Supratik Sen, Dipesh, Abhay Kumar Singh, Manindra Bhushan, Soniya Pal, Anuj Vijay, Benoy Kumar Singh, Raj Pal Singh, Sarthak Tandon and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Sandeep SinghDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amrita School of Medicine, Amrita Vishwavidyapeetham, Faridabad, Haryana, India. sandeep.singh82a@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0542-6185
Supratik SenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dr. B. Borooah Cancer Institute, Guwahati, Assam, India.
DipeshDepartment of Physics, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Abhay Kumar SinghDepartment of Physics, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Manindra BhushanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, New Delhi, India.
Soniya PalDepartment of Physics, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Anuj VijayDepartment of Physics, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Benoy Kumar SinghDepartment of Physics, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Raj Pal SinghDepartment of Physics, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Sarthak TandonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, New Delhi, India.
Munish GairolaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeSinonasal tumours present major radiotherapy challenges because of their proximity to the optic nerves, chiasm, and brainstem. This study aimed to evaluate helical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (HIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), including coplanar and noncoplanar approaches, by integrating plan quality and treatment efficiency. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective planning analysis of 467 patients with sinonasal tumours was conducted using HIMRT and VMAT planning techniques, whereby HIMRT with jaw widths of 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 cm were compared with coplanar and noncoplanar VMAT plans. The planning evaluation included dose coverage (D95, D98, D2, D50%), homogeneity index, and dose spillage metrics (V10-V90%). Organ-at-risk doses were assessed for the optic apparatus, brainstem, and parotids. Efficiency was evaluated via monitor units and beam-on time, whereas delivery accuracy was validated via OSL dosimetry and gamma analysis.

resultsBoth techniques achieved conformal dose coverage and OAR sparing. While HIMRT with narrow jaws improved conformity, it required substantially longer beam-on times. The VMAT plans provided comparable coverage and OAR protection with fewer hotspots, and they delivered treatment in less time. Noncoplanar VMAT offered only minor gains. Phantom validation confirmed the dose delivery accuracy, with OSLD deviations < 5% and gamma passes rates > 97%.

conclusionWhile HIMRT and VMAT are both effective for sinonasal radiotherapy, VMAT offers superior efficiency with comparable plan quality. Therefore, HIMRT may be reserved for anatomically complex cases where marginal conformity benefits justify longer treatment times.

Indexed as

Nose NeoplasmsOrgans at RiskOrgan Sparing TreatmentsParanasal Sinus NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeC‑arm linear acceleratorCoplanar and noncoplanar deliveryHelical intensity-modulated radiation therapySinonasal neoplasmsVolumetric modulated arc therapy

Identifiers

PMID42347872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.