Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19930657›Full record

Trial reportRadiation oncology (London, England)2009

Integrated-boost IMRT or 3-D-CRT using FET-PET based auto-contoured target volume delineation for glioblastoma multiforme--a dosimetric comparison.

Marc D Piroth, Michael Pinkawa, Richard Holy, Gabriele Stoffels, Cengiz Demirel, Charbel Attieh, Hans J Kaiser, Karl J Langen, Michael J Eble

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Integrated boost IMRT with FET-PET-adapted local dose escalation in glioblastomas. Results of a prospective phase II study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2012
    Trial
  5. The impact of vitreous humor: a new perspective on radiation-induced cataractogenesis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Low- vs. high-dose radiotherapy in Graves' ophthalmopathy: a retrospective comparison of long-term results.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Biological tumour volumes of gliomas in early and standard 20-40 minEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Journal of neuro-oncology · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Amino acid PET and MR perfusion imaging in brain tumours.Clinical and translational imaging · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marc D PirothDepartment of Radiation Oncology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen Germany. mpiroth@ukaachen.de
Michael Pinkawa
Richard Holy
Gabriele Stoffels
Cengiz Demirel
Charbel Attieh
Hans J Kaiser
Karl J Langen
Michael J Eble

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiological brain tumor imaging using O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET)-PET combined with inverse treatment planning for locally restricted dose escalation in patients with glioblastoma multiforme seems to be a promising approach.The aim of this study was to compare inverse with forward treatment planning for an integrated boost dose application in patients suffering from a glioblastoma multiforme, while biological target volumes are based on FET-PET and MRI data sets.

methodsIn 16 glioblastoma patients an intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique comprising an integrated boost (IB-IMRT) and a 3-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (3D-CRT) technique were generated for dosimetric comparison. FET-PET, MRI and treatment planning CT (P-CT) were co-registrated. The integrated boost volume (PTV1) was auto-contoured using a cut-off tumor-to-brain ratio (TBR) of > or = 1.6 from FET-PET. PTV2 delineation was MRI-based. The total dose was prescribed to 72 and 60 Gy for PTV1 and PTV2, using daily fractions of 2.4 and 2 Gy.

resultsAfter auto-contouring of PTV1 a marked target shape complexity had an impact on the dosimetric outcome. Patients with 3-4 PTV1 subvolumes vs. a single volume revealed a significant decrease in mean dose (67.7 vs. 70.6 Gy). From convex to complex shaped PTV1 mean doses decreased from 71.3 Gy to 67.7 Gy. The homogeneity and conformity for PTV1 and PTV2 was significantly improved with IB-IMRT. With the use of IB-IMRT the minimum dose within PTV1 (61.1 vs. 57.4 Gy) and PTV2 (51.4 vs. 40.9 Gy) increased significantly, and the mean EUD for PTV2 was improved (59.9 vs. 55.3 Gy, p < 0.01). The EUD for PTV1 was only slightly improved (68.3 vs. 67.3 Gy). The EUD for the brain was equal with both planning techniques.

conclusionIn the presented planning study the integrated boost concept based on inversely planned IB-IMRT is feasible. The FET-PET-based automatically contoured PTV1 can lead to very complex geometric configurations, limiting the achievable mean dose in the boost volume. With IB-IMRT a better homogeneity and conformity, compared to 3D-CRT, could be achieved.

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsAdultAgedBrain NeoplasmsFemaleGlioblastomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRadiotherapy, ConformalRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTyrosineO-(2-fluoroethyl)tyrosineRadiopharmaceuticalsTyrosine

Identifiers

PMID19930657
PMCPMC2787527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.