Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25337411›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2014

Implementation of a dose gradient method into optimization of dose distribution in prostate cancer 3D-CRT plans.

Marta K Giżyńska, Paweł F Kukołowicz, Paweł Kordowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Marta K GiżyńskaDepartment of Medical Physics, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland ; Biomedical Physics Division, Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Poland.
Paweł F KukołowiczDepartment of Medical Physics, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Paweł KordowskiBiomedical Physics Division, Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this work is to present a method of beam weight and wedge angle optimization for patients with prostate cancer.

background3D-CRT is usually realized with forward planning based on a trial and error method. Several authors have published a few methods of beam weight optimization applicable to the 3D-CRT. Still, none on these methods is in common use. MATERIALS AND

methodsOptimization is based on the assumption that the best plan is achieved if dose gradient at ICRU point is equal to zero. Our optimization algorithm requires beam quality index, depth of maximum dose, profiles of wedged fields and maximum dose to femoral heads. The method was tested for 10 patients with prostate cancer, treated with the 3-field technique. Optimized plans were compared with plans prepared by 12 experienced planners. Dose standard deviation in target volume, and minimum and maximum doses were analyzed.

resultsThe quality of plans obtained with the proposed optimization algorithms was comparable to that prepared by experienced planners. Mean difference in target dose standard deviation was 0.1% in favor of the plans prepared by planners for optimization of beam weights and wedge angles. Introducing a correction factor for patient body outline for dose gradient at ICRU point improved dose distribution homogeneity. On average, a 0.1% lower standard deviation was achieved with the optimization algorithm. No significant difference in mean dose-volume histogram for the rectum was observed.

conclusionsOptimization shortens very much time planning. The average planning time was 5 min and less than a minute for forward and computer optimization, respectively.

Indexed as

3D-CRTBeam weightsProstateWedges

Identifiers

PMID25337411
PMCPMC4201781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.