ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2013
Optimizing image guidance frequency and implications on margins for gynecologic malignancies.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevention and management of radiotherapy-related toxicities in gynecological malignancies. Position paper on behalf of AIRO (Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology).La Radiologia medica · 2024Guideline
- Dosimetric impact of rotational setup errors in volumetric modulated arc therapy for postoperative cervical cancer.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Positioning accuracy during VMAT of gynecologic malignancies and the resulting dosimetric impact by a 6-degree-of-freedom couch in combination with daily kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Article
- Effect of Body Mass Factors on Setup Displacement in Gynecologic Tumors and Subsequent Effect on PTV Margins.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo analyze setup deviations using daily megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) and to evaluate three MVCT frequency reducing protocols for gynecologic cancer patients treated with helical tomotherapy.
methodsWe recorded the setup errors of 56 patients with gynecological cancer observed throughout their whole course by matching their daily MVCT with the planning CT. Systematic and random errors were calculated on a patient and population basis. We defined three different protocols corresponding to MVCTs from the first five fractions (FFF), the first ten fractions (FTF) or from the first and third weeks (505). We compared theoretical. setup errors calculated using these 5 or 10 early MVCT scans with the actual errors found with the remaining fractions to to analyze the residual deviations.
resultsThe total systematic (random) deviations had means of -2.0 (3.8)mm, 0.5 (3.4)mm, 0.5 (6.1)mm and -0.5° (0.9°) in vertical (V), longitudinal (LO), lateral (LA), and roll (R) directions, respectively. The proposed three MVCT protocols resulted in minor residual deviations. In all three protocols, 95% of all calculated residual deviations were less than or equal to 5 mm in all 3 directions. When examining the additional minimal CTV-PTV setup margins that were calculated based on these residual deviations, the 505 protocol would have allowed smaller margins than the FFF and FTF protocol, particularly in the V direction.
conclusionsFor patients with gynecologic cancer, the 505-protocol led to the lowest residual deviations and therefore might offer the best approach in reducing the frequency of pre-treatment MVCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.