| Title |
Dosimetric comparison of carbon ion radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy with photon beams for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Radiation Oncology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13014-015-0491-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takanori Abe, Jun-ichi Saitoh, Daijiro Kobayashi, Kei Shibuya, Yoshinori Koyama, Hirohumi Shimada, Katsuyuki Shirai, Tatsuya Ohno, Takashi Nakano |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to compare carbon ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) with photon beams for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), specifically with regard to the dose volume parameters for target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Data of 10 patients who were treated using C-ion RT with a total dose of 60 Gy(RBE) in four fractions were used. The virtual plan of SBRT was simulated on the treatment planning computed tomography images of C-ion RT. Dose volume parameters such as minimum dose covering 90 % of the planning target volume (PTV D90), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), mean liver dose (MLD), volume of the liver receiving 5 to 60 Gy (V5-60), and max point dose (Dmax) of gastrointestinal (GI) tract were calculated from both treatment plans. The PTV D90 was 59.6 ± 0.2 Gy(RBE) in C-ion RT, as compared to 56.6 ± 0.3 Gy in SBRT (p < 0.05). HI and CI were 1.19 ± 0.03 and 0.79 ± 0.06, respectively in C-ion RT, as compared to 1.21 ± 0.01 and 0.37 ± 0.02, respectively in SBRT. Only CI showed a significant difference between two modalities. Mean liver dose was 8.1 ± 1.4 Gy(RBE) in C-ion RT, as compared to 16.1 ± 2.5 Gy in SBRT (p < 0.05). V5 to V50 of liver were higher in SBRT than C-ion RT and significant differences were observed for V5, V10 and V20. Dmax of the GI tract was higher in SBRT than C-ion RT, but did not show a significantly difference. C-ion RT provides an advantage in both target conformity and normal liver sparing compared with SBRT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 30% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
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 24 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,773,420
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,275
of 2,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,338
of 272,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#49
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,057 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 272,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.