↓ Skip to main content

Noncoplanar VMAT for nasopharyngeal tumors: Plan quality versus treatment time

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 8,779)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
3 X users
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Noncoplanar VMAT for nasopharyngeal tumors: Plan quality versus treatment time
Published in
Medical Physics, November 2016
DOI 10.1118/1.4914863
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The authors investigated the potential of optimized noncoplanar irradiation trajectories for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments of nasopharyngeal patients and studied the trade-off between treatment plan quality and delivery time in radiation therapy. For three nasopharyngeal patients, the authors generated treatment plans for nine different delivery scenarios using dedicated optimization methods. They compared these scenarios according to dose characteristics, number of beam directions, and estimated delivery times. In particular, the authors generated the following treatment plans: (1) a 4π plan, which is a not sequenced, fluence optimized plan that uses beam directions from approximately 1400 noncoplanar directions and marks a theoretical upper limit of the treatment plan quality, (2) a coplanar 2π plan with 72 coplanar beam directions as pendant to the noncoplanar 4π plan, (3) a coplanar VMAT plan, (4) a coplanar step and shoot (SnS) plan, (5) a beam angle optimized (BAO) coplanar SnS IMRT plan, (6) a noncoplanar BAO SnS plan, (7) a VMAT plan with rotated treatment couch, (8) a noncoplanar VMAT plan with an optimized great circle around the patient, and (9) a noncoplanar BAO VMAT plan with an arbitrary trajectory around the patient. VMAT using optimized noncoplanar irradiation trajectories reduced the mean and maximum doses in organs at risk compared to coplanar VMAT plans by 19% on average while the target coverage remains constant. A coplanar BAO SnS plan was superior to coplanar SnS or VMAT; however, noncoplanar plans like a noncoplanar BAO SnS plan or noncoplanar VMAT yielded a better plan quality than the best coplanar 2π plan. The treatment plan quality of VMAT plans depended on the length of the trajectory. The delivery times of noncoplanar VMAT plans were estimated to be 6.5 min in average; 1.6 min longer than a coplanar plan but on average 2.8 min faster than a noncoplanar SnS plan with comparable treatment plan quality. The authors' study reconfirms the dosimetric benefits of noncoplanar irradiation of nasopharyngeal tumors. Both SnS using optimized noncoplanar beam ensembles and VMAT using an optimized, arbitrary, noncoplanar trajectory enabled dose reductions in organs at risk compared to coplanar SnS and VMAT. Using great circles or simple couch rotations to implement noncoplanar VMAT, however, was not sufficient to yield meaningful improvements in treatment plan quality. The authors estimate that noncoplanar VMAT using arbitrary optimized irradiation trajectories comes at an increased delivery time compared to coplanar VMAT yet at a decreased delivery time compared to noncoplanar SnS IMRT.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 54 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Other 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 19 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 17 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 19%
Computer Science 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 21 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 01 July 2025.
All research outputs
#685,654
of 28,769,885 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#14
of 8,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,267
of 417,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#1
of 357 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,769,885 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,779 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 417,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 357 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.