↓ Skip to main content

mARC vs. IMRT radiotherapy of the prostate with flat and flattening-filter-free beam energies

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
mARC vs. IMRT radiotherapy of the prostate with flat and flattening-filter-free beam energies
Published in
Radiation Oncology, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13014-014-0250-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yvonne Dzierma, Katharina Bell, Jan Palm, Frank Nuesken, Norbert Licht, Christian Rübe

Abstract

BackgroundThere as yet exists no systematic planning study investigating the novel mARC rotational radiotherapy technique, which is conceptually different from VMAT. We therefore present a planning study for prostate cancer, comparing mARC with IMRT treatment at the same linear accelerator equipped with flat and flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon energies.MethodsWe retrospectively re-contoured and re-planned treatment plans for 10 consecutive prostate cancer patients. Plans were created for a Siemens Artiste linear accelerator with flat 6 MV and FFF 7 MV photons, using the Prowess Panther treatment planning system. mARC and IMRT plans are compared with each other considering indices for plan quality and dose to organs at risk. All plans were exported to the machine and irradiated while measuring scattered dose by thermoluminescent dosimeters placed on an anthropomorphic phantom. Treatment times were also measured and compared.ResultsAll plans were found acceptable for treatment. There was no marked preference for either technique or energy from the point of view of target coverage and dose to organs at risk. Scattered dose was significantly decreased by the use of FFF energies. While mARC and IMRT plans were of very similar overall quality, treatment time could be markedly decreased both by the use of mARC and FFF energy.ConclusionsHighly conformal treatment plans could be created both by the use of flat 6 MV and FFF 7 MV energy, using IMRT or mARC. For all practical purposes, the FFF 7 MV energy and mARC plans are acceptable for treatment, a combination of both allowing a drastic reduction in treatment time from over 5 minutes to about half this value.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 33%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Physics and Astronomy 2 11%
Computer Science 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 8 44%
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 27 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,243,777
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,675
of 2,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,090
of 361,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#67
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,050 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 361,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.