English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  To compare the RapidArc plan for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans using dosimetric analysis.    Methods  Nine patients with unresectable HCC were enrolled in this study. Dosimetric values for RapidArc, IMRT, and 3DCRT were calculated for total doses of 45~50.4 Gy using 1.8 Gy/day. The parameters included the conformal index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and hot spot (V 107% ) for the planned target volume (PTV) as well as the monitor units (MUs) for plan efficiency, the mean dose (D mean ) for the organs at risk (OAR) and the maximal dose at 1% volume (D 1% ) for the spinal cord. The percentage of the normal liver volume receiving ≥ 40, > 30, > 20, and > 10 Gy (V 40 Gy , V 30 Gy , V 20 Gy , and V 10 Gy ) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were also evaluated to determine liver toxicity.    Results  All three methods achieved comparable homogeneity for the PTV. RapidArc achieved significantly better CI and V 107%  values than IMRT or 3DCRT ( p  < 0.05). The MUs were significantly lower for RapidArc (323.8 ± 60.7) and 3DCRT (322.3 ± 28.6) than for IMRT (1165.4 ± 170.7) ( p  < 0.001). IMRT achieved a significantly lower D mean  of the normal liver than did 3DCRT or RapidArc ( p  = 0.001). 3DCRT had higher V 40 Gy  and V 30 Gy  values for the normal liver than did RapidArc or IMRT. Although the V 10 Gy  to the normal liver was higher with RapidArc (75.8 ± 13.1%) than with 3DCRT or IMRT (60.5 ± 10.2% and 57.2 ± 10.0%, respectively;  p  < 0.01), the NTCP did not differ significantly between RapidArc (4.38 ± 2.69) and IMRT (3.98 ± 3.00) and both were better than 3DCRT (7.57 ± 4.36) ( p  = 0.02).    Conclusions  RapidArc provided favorable tumor coverage compared with IMRT or 3DCRT, but RapidArc is not superior to IMRT in terms of liver protection. Further studies are needed to establish treatment outcome differences between the three approaches.

radiation oncology

Volumetric intensity-modulated Arc (RapidArc) therapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-D conformal radiotherapy