ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Comparison of dosimetric parameters and delivery accuracy between conformal radiotherapy-intensity modulated radiotherapy-combined and intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning for central lung cancer patients receiving stereotactic body radiotherapy.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the development of technology, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been increasingly applied in the treatment of patients with central lung cancer. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) are common SBRT techniques for lung cancer. Although 3DCRT plans have low complexity, the quality of such plans is highly dependent on the experience of the planner. IMRT plans can provide better organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, but they are associated with a high degree of modulation. Therefore, an SBRT planning strategy that combines the advantages of 3DCRT and IMRT has been developed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in dosimetric parameters and delivery accuracy between CRT-IMRT-combined (Co-CRIM) and IMRT plans for central lung cancer patients treated with SBRT. Methods: Twenty patients were retrospectively included in this study. Four plans were designed for each patient. Co-CRIM-E and IMRT-E plans were designed based on Co-CRIM and IMRT, and delivered with Varian Edge. Co-CRIM-T and IMRT-T plans were designed based on Co-CRIM and IMRT, and delivered with Varian TrueBeam. Dosimetric parameters were compared between Co-CRIM-E and IMRT-E plans, as well as between Co-CRIM-T and IMRT-T plans. Monitor unit (MU), modulation factor (MF) and gamma (γ) passing rate were calculated for each plan. Paired-samples t-test was used to check the differences between datasets and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Conformity index (CI), ratio of 50% prescription isodose volume to the planning target volume (PTV) volume (R50) and maximum dose (in % of dose prescribed) at 2 cm from PTV in any direction (D2cm) were significantly higher in Co-CRIM-E plans than those in IMRT-E plans. The CI, D2cm in Co-CRIM-T plans were also significantly higher than those in IMRT-T plans. Mean lung dose (MLD), percentage of the total lung volume receiving more than 10 Gy (V10), 12.5 Gy (V12.5), 13.5 Gy (V13.5) and 20 Gy (V20) were significantly higher in Co-CRIM-E plans than those in IMRT-E plans. MLD, V10, V12.5, V13.5 and V20 of total lung in Co-CRIM-T plans were also significantly higher than those in IMRT-T plans. MU and MF were significantly lower in Co-CRIM-E and Co-CRIM-T plans than those in IMRT-E and IMRT-T plans and γ passing rate was significantly higher than that in IMRT-E and IMRT-T plan. Conclusions: For central lung cancer patients treated with SBRT, the Co-CRIM approach was able to achieve plans that met clinical constraints. Compared with IMRT, Co-CRIM significantly reduced plan complexity and improved delivery accuracy with slightly reduced target conformability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.