en Radiation Biology Radiation Biology تحقيق بديع Original Research <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="text-justify:newspaper"><span style="text-kashida-space:50%"><span style="line-height:119%"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:black"><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Background</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">In recent years, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and fixed field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) have been used as the two mainstream radiotherapy techniques for the treatment of nasal tumors. In this study, we compared effectiveness of these two radiotherapy techniques in the treatment of nasal tumors through analysis of relevant literature and meta-analysis. </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Materials and Methods</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US"> A search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases on April 2022 to identify all related literature in line with pre-determined eligibility criteria. The included/excluded studies were screened manually and relevance data were extracted. Forest plots were plotted and analyze, Egger&rsquo;s asymmetry tests and sensitivity analysis were conducted using software Stata 16.0. </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Results</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. We found no significant difference in D</span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:5.9939pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">_2%</span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US"> and D</span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:5.9939pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">_98%</span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US"> of the Planning Target Volumes (PTV) between VMAT and IMRT. In contrast, the conformity index (CI) and the homogeneity index (HI) were significantly different between the two groups. Further analysis revealed no significant differences in dose sparing for all analyzed organs at risk (OARs) between VMAT and IMRT techniques. In addition, the monitor unit (MUs) of VMAT plan was significantly lower than that of the IMRT plan. </span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-style:italic"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">Conclusions</span></span></span></span></span></span><span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="color:#1f497d"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="language:en-US">:</span></span></span></span></span> <span lang="en-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><span style="language:en-US">VMAT has better local&nbsp;tumor&nbsp;control rate compared with IMRT, but it does not significantly reduce maximum dose (Dmax) or mean dose (Dmean) of OARs. We suggest that VMAT plan may be a better radiation therapy technology in the treatment of nasal tumors.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div> Nasal tumor, VMAT, IMRT, meta-analysis. 561 569 http://ijrr.com/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-1080&slc_lang=en&sid=1 W.G. Feng 7900319475328460024387 7900319475328460024387 No Department of Radiotherapy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu 73000, China W. Ma 7900319475328460024388 7900319475328460024388 No Department of Radiotherapy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu 73000, China Sh.P. Li 7900319475328460024389 7900319475328460024389 No Department of Radiotherapy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu 73000, China Y.X. Guo 7900319475328460024390 7900319475328460024390 No Department of Radiotherapy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu 73000, China W. Du 7900319475328460024391 7900319475328460024391 No Department of Radiotherapy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu 73000, China H.Y. Cai gschy333@163.com 7900319475328460024392 7900319475328460024392 Yes Department of Radiotherapy, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu 73000, China