↓ Skip to main content

Whole brain radiotherapy with adjuvant or concomitant boost in brain metastasis: dosimetric comparison between helical and volumetric IMRT technique

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Whole brain radiotherapy with adjuvant or concomitant boost in brain metastasis: dosimetric comparison between helical and volumetric IMRT technique
Published in
Radiation Oncology, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0634-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Borghetti, Sara Pedretti, Luigi Spiazzi, Rossella Avitabile, Mauro Urpis, Federica Foscarini, Giulia Tesini, Francesca Trevisan, Paolo Ghirardelli, Sara Angela Pandini, Luca Triggiani, Stefano Maria Magrini, Michela Buglione

Abstract

To compare and evaluate the possible advantages related to the use of VMAT and helical IMRT and two different modalities of boost delivering, adjuvant stereotactic boost (SRS) or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), in the treatment of brain metastasis (BM) in RPA classes I-II patients. Ten patients were treated with helical IMRT, 5 of them with SRS after whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and 5 with SIB. MRI co-registration with planning CT was mandatory and prescribed doses were 30 Gy in 10 fractions (fr) for WBRT and 15Gy/1fr or 45Gy/10fr in SRS or SIB, respectively. For each patient, 4 "treatment plans" (VMAT SRS and SIB, helical IMRT SRS and SIB) were calculated and accepted if PTV boost was included in 95 % isodose and dose constraints of the main organs at risk were respected without major deviations. Homogeneity Index (HI), Conformal Index (CI) and Conformal Number (CN) were considered to compare the different plans. Moreover, time of treatment delivery was calculated and considered in the analysis. Volume of brain metastasis ranged between 1.43 and 51.01 cc (mean 12.89 ± 6.37 ml) and 3 patients had double lesions. V95% resulted over 95 % in the average for each kind of technique, but the "target coverage" was inadequate for VMAT planning with two sites. The HI resulted close to the ideal value of zero in all cases; VMAT-SIB, VMAT-SRS, Helical IMRT-SIB and Helical IMRT-SRS showed mean CI of 2.15, 2.10, 2.44 and 1.66, respectively (optimal range: 1.5-2.0). Helical IMRT-SRS was related to the best and reliable finding of CN (0.66). The mean of treatment time was 210 s, 467 s, 440 s, 1598 s, respectively, for VMAT-SIB, VMAT-SRS, Helical IMRT-SIB and Helical IMRT-SRS. This dosimetric comparison show that helical IMRT obtain better target coverage and respect of CI and CN; VMAT could be acceptable in solitary metastasis. SIB modality can be considered as a good choice for clinical and logistic compliance; literature's preliminary data are confirming also a radiobiological benefit for SIB. Helical IMRT-SRS seems less effective for the long time of treatment compared to other techniques.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Other 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Physics and Astronomy 3 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 17 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,799,386
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,277
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,235
of 299,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#18
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 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 2,059 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 299,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.