| Title |
Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy, VMAT, fixed-field IMRT and 3D-conformal radiotherapy for stage I-II nasal natural killer T-cell lymphoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-017-0812-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xianfeng Liu, Erliang Huang, Ying Wang, Yanan He, Huanli Luo, Mingsong Zhong, Da Qiu, Chao Li, Han Yang, Guanglei He, Juan Zhou, Fu Jin |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare radiotherapy plans for Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (NNKTL) using helical tomotherapy (HT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), Fixed-Field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Eight patents with Stage I-II NNKTL treated with IMRT were re-planned for HT, VMAT (two full arcs), and 3D-CRT. The quality of target coverage, the exposure of normal tissue and the efficiency of radiation delivery were analyzed. HT showed significant improvement over IMRT in terms of D98%, cold spot volume and homogeneity index (HI) of planning target volume (PTV). VMAT provided best dose uniformity (p = 0.000) to PTV, while HT had best dose homogeneity among the four radiotherapy techniques (p = 0.000) to PTV. VMAT obviously reduced treatment time (p = 0.010; 0.000) compared to HT and IMRT. Mean dose of left and right optic nerve was significantly reduced by IMRT compared to HT (19.86%, p = 0.000; 21.40%, p = 0.002) and VMAT (8.97%, p = 0.002; 9.35%, p = 0.001), and maximum dose of left lens of VMAT increased over the HT (36.25%, p = 0.043) and IMRT (40.65%, p = 0.001). The unexpected results show that both HT and VMAT can achieve higher conformal treatment plans while getting worse organs at risk (OARs) sparing than IMRT for patients with Stage I-II NNKTL. VMAT requires the shortest delivery time, and IMRT delivers the lowest dose to most OARs. The results could provide guidance for selecting proper radiation technologies for different cases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 27% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,418,183
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,689
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,443
of 309,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.