↓ Skip to main content

Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of benign skull-base tumors: a dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with Rapidarc® versus non-coplanar dynamic arcs

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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.
Title
Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of benign skull-base tumors: a dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with Rapidarc® versus non-coplanar dynamic arcs
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0632-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fanny Martin, Florian Magnier, Lucie Berger, Jessica Miroir, Emmanuel Chautard, Pierre Verrelle, Michel Lapeyre, Julian Biau

Abstract

Benign tumors of the skull base are a challenge when delivering radiotherapy. An appropriate choice of radiation technique may significantly improve the patient's outcomes. Our study aimed to compare the dosimetric results of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy between non-coplanar dynamic arcs and coplanar volumetric modulated arctherapy (Rapidarc®). Thirteen patients treated with Novalis TX® were analysed: six vestibular schwannomas, four pituitary adenomas and three meningioma. Two treatment plans were created for each case: dynamic arcs (4-5 non coplanar arcs) and Rapidarc® (2 coplanar arcs). All tumors were >3 cm and accessible to both techniques. Patients had a stereotactic facemask (Brainlab) and were daily repositioned by Exactrac®. GTV and CTV were contoured according to tumor type. A 1-mm margin was added to the CTV to obtain PTV. Radiation doses were 52.2-54 Gy, using 1.8 Gy per fraction. Treatment time was faster with Rapidarc®. The mean PTV V95 % was 98.8 for Rapidarc® and 95.9 % for DA (p = 0.09). Homogeneity index was better with Rapidarc®: 0.06 vs. 0.09 (p = 0.01). Higher conformity index values were obtained with Rapidarc®: 75.2 vs. 67.9 % (p = 0.04). The volume of healthy brain that received a high dose (V90 %) was 0.7 % using Rapidarc® vs. 1.4 % with dynamic arcs (p = 0.05). Rapidarc® and dynamic arcs gave, respectively, a mean D40 % of 10.5 vs. 18.1 Gy (p = 0.005) for the hippocampus and a Dmean of 25.4 vs. 35.3 Gy (p = 0.008) for the ipsilateral cochlea. Low-dose delivery with Rapidarc® and dynamic arcs were, respectively, 184 vs. 166 cm(3) for V20 Gy (p = 0.14) and 1265 vs. 1056 cm(3) for V5 Gy (p = 0.67). Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy using Rapidarc® for large benign tumors of the skull base provided target volume coverage that was at least equal to that of dynamics arcs, with better conformity and homogeneity and faster treatment time. Rapidarc® also offered better sparing of the ipsilateral cochlea and hippocampus. Low-dose delivery were similar between both techniques.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 21%
Other 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 45%
Physics and Astronomy 6 14%
Engineering 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,129,336
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#91
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,212
of 299,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#2
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,059 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 299,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 92% of its contemporaries.