ArticlePloS one2015
Improving target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical oesophageal cancer using a simple optimisation method.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Application of Nimotuzumab Combined With Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Toward the Treatment of Locally Advanced Cervical Esophageal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Different definitions of esophagus influence esophageal toxicity prediction for esophageal cancer patients administered simultaneous integrated boost versus standard-dose radiation therapy.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Regional hyperthermia combined with radiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with supraclavicular lymph node metastasis.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Radiobiological evaluation of simultaneously dose-escalated versus non-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for patients with upper thoracic esophageal cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2017Article
- Dosimetric and Radiobiological Impact of Patient Setup Errors in Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the performance of a simple optimisation method for improving target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical oesophageal cancer.
methodsFor 20 selected patients, clinically acceptable original IMRT plans (Original plans) were created, and two optimisation methods were adopted to improve the plans: 1) a base dose function (BDF)-based method, in which the treatment plans were re-optimised based on the original plans, and 2) a dose-controlling structure (DCS)-based method, in which the original plans were re-optimised by assigning additional constraints for hot and cold spots. The Original, BDF-based and DCS-based plans were compared with regard to target dose homogeneity, conformity, OAR sparing, planning time and monitor units (MUs). Dosimetric verifications were performed and delivery times were recorded for the BDF-based and DCS-based plans.
resultsThe BDF-based plans provided significantly superior dose homogeneity and conformity compared with both the DCS-based and Original plans. The BDF-based method further reduced the doses delivered to the OARs by approximately 1-3%. The re-optimisation time was reduced by approximately 28%, but the MUs and delivery time were slightly increased. All verification tests were passed and no significant differences were found.
conclusionThe BDF-based method for the optimisation of IMRT for cervical oesophageal cancer can achieve significantly better dose distributions with better planning efficiency at the expense of slightly more MUs.
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.