Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27909738›Full record

Trial reportStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2017

Prostate bed target interfractional motion using RTOG consensus definitions and daily CT on rails : Does target motion differ between superior and inferior portions of the clinical target volume?

Vivek Verma, Shifeng Chen, Sumin Zhou, Charles A Enke, Andrew O Wahl

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Dosimetric and volumetric effects in clinical target volume and organs at risk during postprostatectomy radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Vivek VermaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE 68198, Omaha, USA.
Shifeng ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sumin ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE 68198, Omaha, USA.
Charles A EnkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE 68198, Omaha, USA.
Andrew O WahlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE 68198, Omaha, USA. awahl@unmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUsing high-quality CT-on-rails imaging, the daily motion of the prostate bed clinical target volume (PB-CTV) based on consensus Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) definitions (instead of surgical clips/fiducials) was studied. It was assessed whether PB motion in the superior portion of PB-CTV (SUP-CTV) differed from the inferior PB-CTV (INF-CTV). PATIENTS AND

methodsEight pT2-3bN0-1M0 patients underwent postprostatectomy intensity-modulated radiotherapy, totaling 300 fractions. INF-CTV and SUP-CTV were defined as PB-CTV located inferior and superior to the superior border of the pubic symphysis, respectively. Daily pretreatment CT-on-rails images were compared to the planning CT in the left-right (LR), superoinferior (SI), and anteroposterior (AP) directions. Two parameters were defined: "total PB-CTV motion" represented total shifts from skin tattoos to RTOG-defined anatomic areas; "PB-CTV target motion" (performed for both SUP-CTV and INF-CTV) represented shifts from bone to RTOG-defined anatomic areas (i. e., subtracting shifts from skin tattoos to bone).

resultsMean (± standard deviation, SD) total PB-CTV motion was -1.5 (± 6.0), 1.3 (± 4.5), and 3.7 (± 5.7) mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Mean (± SD) PB-CTV target motion was 0.2 (±1.4), 0.3 (±2.4), and 0 (±3.1) mm in the LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. Mean (± SD) INF-CTV target motion was 0.1 (± 2.8), 0.5 (± 2.2), and 0.2 (± 2.5) mm, and SUP-CTV target motion was 0.3 (± 1.8), 0.5 (± 2.3), and 0 (± 5.0) mm in LR, SI, and AP directions, respectively. No statistically significant differences between INF-CTV and SUP-CTV motion were present in any direction.

conclusionThere are no statistically apparent motion differences between SUP-CTV and INF-CTV. Current uniform planning target volume (PTV) margins are adequate to cover both portions of the CTV.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAgedArtifactsGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotionPatient PositioningRadiation OncologyRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityComputed tomographyProstate cancerProstatectomyRadiotherapy, intensity modulatedToxicity

Identifiers

PMID27909738

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.