Trial reportPloS one2017
Robust plan optimization using edge-enhanced intensity for intrafraction organ deformation in prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dosimetric comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy planning techniques for prostate cancer in the presence of intrafractional organ deformation.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated a method for prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) based on edge-enhanced (EE) intensity in the presence of intrafraction organ deformation using the data of 37 patients treated with step-and-shoot IMRT. On the assumption that the patient setup error was already accounted for by image guidance, only organ deformation over the treatment course was considered. Once the clinical target volume (CTV), rectum, and bladder were delineated and assigned dose constraints for dose optimization, each voxel in the CTV derived from the DICOM RT-dose grid could have a stochastic dose from the different voxel location according to the probability density function as an organ deformation. The stochastic dose for the CTV was calculated as the mean dose at the location through changing the voxel location randomly 1000 times. In the EE approach, the underdose region in the CTV was delineated and optimized with higher dose constraints that resulted in an edge-enhanced intensity beam to the CTV. This was compared to a planning target volume (PTV) margin (PM) approach in which a CTV to PTV margin equivalent to the magnitude of organ deformation was added to obtain an optimized dose distribution. The total monitor units, number of segments, and conformity index were compared between the two approaches, and the dose based on the organ deformation of the CTV, rectum, and bladder was evaluated. The total monitor units, number of segments, and conformity index were significantly lower with the EE approach than with the PM approach, while maintaining the dose coverage to the CTV with organ deformation. The dose to the rectum and bladder were significantly reduced in the EE approach compared with the PM approach. We conclude that the EE approach is superior to the PM with regard to intrafraction organ deformation.
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.