ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2012
Reduction of dosimetric impact of intrafractional prostate motion during helical tomotherapy.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vivo measurement of dose distribution in patients' lymphocytes: helical tomotherapy versus step-and-shoot IMRT in prostate cancer.Journal of radiation research · 2015Trial
- A review on radiochromic film dosimetry in radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Impact of inter- and intrafraction deviations and residual set-up errors on PTV margins. Different alignment techniques in 3D conformal prostate cancer radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, the interplay between intrafractional prostate motion and helical tomotherapy (HT) radiation delivery with respect to treatment planning parameters, such as jaw size and pitch factor, was investigated.
methodsFour treatment plans were created using two jaw widths (i.e., 1.05 and 2.5 cm) and two pitch factors (i.e., 0.287 and 0.574). A phantom with a slit for a film, attached to the motion platform, was used to simulate two-dimensional prostate motion in the superior-inferior and anterior-posterior directions. Doses were measured using gafchromic EBT films in the sagittal position. Each treatment plan was delivered to the static and dynamic phantom. Dose measurements performed with the dynamic phantom were quantitatively compared to static phantom doses in terms of dose-area histograms (DAH) for the planning target volume (PTV) and prostate, percentage of prostate and PTV receiving the prescription dose, and the minimum dose received by 95% of the prostate.
resultsLarger jaw width (2.5 cm) provided more adequate coverage of the PTV and prostate: D(95) of the moving prostate was 1.9 Gy for both plans with the jaw size 2.5 cm. When the jaw size was 1.05 cm, D(95) of the prostate and the PTV dropped to 1.5 Gy and 1.4 Gy, respectively. For a given jaw size, prostate and PTV dose coverage do not appear to be significantly dependent on the pitch factor.
conclusionIn the absence of an optimal motion management technique, the correct choice of the planning parameters is important to overcome larger under- and overdosage caused by intrafractional prostate motion during HT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22349631What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.