Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25847605›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2015

Quantifying Unnecessary Normal Tissue Complication Risks due to Suboptimal Planning: A Secondary Study of RTOG 0126.

Kevin L Moore, Rachel Schmidt, Vitali Moiseenko, Lindsey A Olsen, Jun Tan, Ying Xiao, James Galvin, Stephanie Pugh, Michael J Seider, Adam P Dicker and 3 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing 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

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Intentional creation of suboptimal, realistic dose distributions.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors.

Kevin L MooreDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: kevinmoore@ucsd.edu.
Rachel SchmidtDepartment of Physics, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas.
Vitali MoiseenkoDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Lindsey A OlsenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Jun TanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Ying XiaoThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
James GalvinThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Stephanie PughNRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Michael J SeiderAkron City Hospital, Akron, Ohio.
Adam P DickerThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Walter BoschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Jeff MichalskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Sasa MuticDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

Funding

NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
RTOG Foreign AccrualU10CA021661 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI CURRAN, WALTER J. · 1985 to 2013
$150.3M
Statistics CoreU10CA180822 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Mei-Yin C Polley · 2014 to 2026
$146.4M
IROC: Enhancing local enrolling site radiological data capture capabilities for NCTN trialsU24CA180803 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI Thomas J. FitzGerald, MICHAEL V KNOPP · 2014 to 2026
$116.2M
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY QA CENTERU24CA081647 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MICHALSKI, JEFF M. · 1999 to 2013
$22.8M
Washington University/ Siteman Cancer Center Lead Academic SiteU10CA180833 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BARTLETT, NANCY L, KOZOWER, BENJAMIN D · 2014 to 2018
$7.6M
NCI NIH HHS U10 CA021661NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180822NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180833NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS U10 CA21661NCI NIH HHS U24 CA081647NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803NCI NIH HHS U24CA81647
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to quantify the frequency and clinical severity of quality deficiencies in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 219 IMRT patients from the high-dose arm (79.2 Gy) of RTOG 0126 were analyzed. To quantify plan quality, we used established knowledge-based methods for patient-specific dose-volume histogram (DVH) prediction of organs at risk and a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model for grade ≥2 rectal complications to convert DVHs into normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs). The LKB model was validated by fitting dose-response parameters relative to observed toxicities. The 90th percentile (22 of 219) of plans with the lowest excess risk (difference between clinical and model-predicted NTCP) were used to create a model for the presumed best practices in the protocol (pDVH0126,top10%). Applying the resultant model to the entire sample enabled comparisons between DVHs that patients could have received to DVHs they actually received. Excess risk quantified the clinical impact of suboptimal planning. Accuracy of pDVH predictions was validated by replanning 30 of 219 patients (13.7%), including equal numbers of presumed "high-quality," "low-quality," and randomly sampled plans. NTCP-predicted toxicities were compared to adverse events on protocol.

resultsExisting models showed that bladder-sparing variations were less prevalent than rectum quality variations and that increased rectal sparing was not correlated with target metrics (dose received by 98% and 2% of the PTV, respectively). Observed toxicities were consistent with current LKB parameters. Converting DVH and pDVH0126,top10% to rectal NTCPs, we observed 94 of 219 patients (42.9%) with ≥5% excess risk, 20 of 219 patients (9.1%) with ≥10% excess risk, and 2 of 219 patients (0.9%) with ≥15% excess risk. Replanning demonstrated the predicted NTCP reductions while maintaining the volume of the PTV receiving prescription dose. An equivalent sample of high-quality plans showed fewer toxicities than low-quality plans, 6 of 73 versus 10 of 73 respectively, although these differences were not significant (P=.21) due to insufficient statistical power in this retrospective study.

conclusionsPlan quality deficiencies in RTOG 0126 exposed patients to substantial excess risk for rectal complications.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingDose-Response Relationship, RadiationHumansMaleModels, StatisticalOrgans at RiskOrgan Sparing TreatmentsProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of Health CareRadiation InjuriesRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRectumRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID25847605
PMCPMC4431941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.