ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026
Dosimetric comparison of pipe-joint versus conventional VMAT for lattice radiotherapy in bulky tumors: a retrospective planning study.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLattice radiotherapy (LRT) is a promising spatially fractionated technique for bulky tumors. However, when lattice vertices extend over a large superior-inferior distance, conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (c-VMAT) may require broad jaw apertures, which may compromise longitudinal dose modulation, increase leakage-related low-dose exposure, and exacerbate island-blocking-like effects. To address these limitations, we developed pipe-joint VMAT (PJ-VMAT), a beam's-eye-view-guided longitudinal segmentation strategy.
methodsNineteen consecutive patients with bulky tumors were retrospectively included. Spherical lattice vertices were generated within the gross tumor volume (GTV) using an in-house sphere-packing algorithm. For each patient, four plans were generated: lattice stereotactic body radiotherapy (L-SBRT) and standalone lattice radiotherapy (S-LRT), each implemented using c-VMAT or PJ-VMAT. Plans were normalized such that 95% of the lattice target volume received 100% of the prescription dose. The primary dosimetric endpoints were dose fall-off around the lattice vertices and the peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR). Secondary endpoints included background-dose reduction, normal-tissue sparing, plan complexity, and delivery efficiency. An exploratory geometry-based association analysis was performed to examine whether target-geometry descriptors were associated with the magnitude of dosimetric benefit from PJ-VMAT. No formal multiplicity adjustment was applied, and all reported values were nominal.
resultsCompared with c-VMAT, PJ-VMAT achieved steeper dose fall-off, with lower gradient index values in both L-SBRT (PJ-VMAT: 10.55 vs. c-VMAT: 12.72) and S-LRT (PJ-VMAT: 7.12 vs. c-VMAT: 8.33). PJ-VMAT improved most PVDR metrics, with larger gains observed in the S-LRT setting. In addition, PJ-VMAT reduced background dose to the GTV-LTV region, Body-GTV region, and GTV shell. These dosimetric advantages were accompanied by higher monitor units, greater plan complexity, and longer delivery times. Several associations between target geometry and dosimetric benefit were observed, particularly in the L-SBRT setting; however, these findings were exploratory and hypothesis-generating.
conclusionsIn this in silico planning study, PJ-VMAT demonstrated favorable dosimetric performance compared with c-VMAT for LRT in bulky tumors.The observed advantages may reflect improved longitudinal dose modulation through segment-specific jaw restriction, resulting in enhanced peak-to-valley dose separation and reduced background-dose exposure. The exploratory geometry-related findings should not be used to guide individual patient selection and require validation in larger cohorts.
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.