Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27167286›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016

Quantification of the margin required for treating intraprostatic lesions.

Matthew T Studenski, Yanisley Valenciaga, Matthew C Abramowitz, Radka Stoyanova, Elizabeth Bossart, Nesrin Dogan, Alan Pollack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors.

Matthew T StudenskiUniversity of Miami Miller School of Medicine. m.studenski@med.miami.edu.
Yanisley Valenciaga
Matthew C Abramowitz
Radka Stoyanova
Elizabeth Bossart
Nesrin Dogan
Alan Pollack

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences allow physicians to define the dominant intraprostatic lesion (IPL) in prostate radiation therapy treat-ments allowing for dose escalation and potentially increased tumor control. This work quantifies the margin required around the MRI-defined IPL accounting for both prostate motion and deformation. Ten patients treated with a simultaneous integrated intraprostatic boost (SIIB) were retrospectively selected and replanned with incremental 1 mm margins from 0-5 mm around the IPL to determine if there were any significant differences in dosimetric parameters. Sensitivity analysis was then performed accounting for random and systematic uncertainties in both prostate motion and deformation to ensure adequate dose was delivered to the IPL. Prostate deformation was assessed using daily CBCT imaging and implanted fiducial markers. The average IPL volume without margin was 2.3% of the PTV volume and increased to 11.8% with a 5 mm margin. Despite these changes in vol-ume, the only statistically significant dosimetric difference was found for the PTV maximum dose, which increased with increasing margin. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that a 3.0 mm margin ensures > 95% IPL coverage accounting for both motion and deformation. We found that a margin of 3.0 mm around the MRI defined IPL is sufficient to account for random and systematic errors in IPL posi-tion for the majority of cases.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyDose Fractionation, RadiationHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID27167286
PMCPMC5690932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.