Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28806990›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2017

DVH- and NTCP-based dosimetric comparison of different longitudinal margins for VMAT-IMRT of esophageal cancer.

S Münch, M Oechsner, S E Combs, D Habermehl

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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. Article
  2. Effect of lung volume on helical radiotherapy in esophageal cancer: are there predictive factors to achieve acceptable lung doses?Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparison of treatment plans for a high-field MRI-linac and a conventional linac for esophageal cancer.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019
    Article
  5. Adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus: neoadjuvant chemoradiation and radical surgery : Long-term results.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018
    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

4 authors.

S MünchDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. stefan.muench@mri.tum.de.
M OechsnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
S E CombsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
D HabermehlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. daniel.habermehl@tum.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo cover the microscopic tumor spread in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCC), longitudinal margins of 3-4 cm are used for radiotherapy (RT) protocols. However, smaller margins of 2-3 cm might be reasonable when advanced diagnostic imaging is integrated into target volume delineation. Purpose of this study was to compare the dose distribution and deposition to the organs at risk (OAR) for different longitudinal margins using a DVH- and NTCP-based approach.

methodsTen patients with SCC of the middle or lower third were retrospectively selected. Three planning target volumes (PTV) with longitudinal margins of 4 cm, 3 cm and 2 cm and an axial margin of 1.5 cm to the gross target volume (GTV) were defined for each patient. For each PTV two treatment plans with total doses of 41.4 Gy (neoadjuvant treatment) and 50.4 Gy (definite treatment) were calculated. Dose to the lungs, heart, myelon and liver were then evaluated and compared between different PTVs.

resultsWhen using a longitudinal margin of 3 cm instead of 4 cm, all dose parameters (Dmin, Dmean, Dmedian and V5-V35), except Dmax could be significantly reduced for the lungs. Regarding the heart, a significant reduction was seen for Dmean and V5, but not for Dmin, Dmax, Dmedian and V10-V35. When comparing a longitudinal margin of 4 cm to a longitudinal margin of 2 cm, a significant difference was calculated for Dmin, Dmean, Dmedian and V5-V35 of the lungs and for Dmax, Dmean and V5-V35 of the heart. Nevertheless, no difference was seen for median heart dose. An additional dose reduction for V10 of the heart was achieved for definite treatment plans when using a longitudinal margin of 3 cm. The NTCP-based risk of pneumonitis was significantly reduced by a margin reduction to 2 cm for neoadjuvant and definite treatment plans.

conclusionReduction of longitudinal margins from 4 cm to 3 cm can significantly reduce the dose to lungs and Dmean of the heart. Despite clinical benefit and oncologic outcome remain unclear, reduction of the longitudinal margins might provide the opportunity to reduce side effects of chemoradiation (CRT) for SCC in upcoming studies.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansOrgans at RiskRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckDosimetric effectsEsophageal cancerLongitudinal marginsModern radiation techniques

Identifiers

PMID28806990
PMCPMC5557554

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.