Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29349601›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2018

Prospective feasibility analysis of a novel off-line approach for MR-guided radiotherapy.

Tilman Bostel, Asja Pfaffenberger, Stefan Delorme, Constantin Dreher, Gernot Echner, Peter Haering, Clemens Lang, Mona Splinter, Frederik Laun, Marco Müller and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. First prospective clinical evaluation of feasibility and patient acceptance of magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy in Germany.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tilman BostelClinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Asja PfaffenbergerDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan DelormeHeidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Constantin DreherHeidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Gernot EchnerDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter HaeringHeidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Clemens LangHeidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Mona SplinterHeidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Frederik LaunHeidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marco MüllerHeidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Oliver JäkelHeidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology, Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jürgen DebusClinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter E HuberClinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Florian SterzingClinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nils H NicolayClinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. nils.nicolay@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
German Cancer Research Center · DEHeidelberger Institut für Radioonkologie · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present work aimed to analyze the feasibility of a shuttle-based MRI-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) in the treatment of pelvic malignancies. PATIENTS AND

methods20 patients with pelvic malignancies were included in this prospective feasibility analysis. Patients underwent daily MRI in treatment position prior to radiotherapy at the German Cancer Research Center. Positional inaccuracies, time and patient compliance were assessed for the application of off-line MRgRT.

resultsIn 78% of applied radiation fractions, MR imaging for position verification could be performed without problems. Additionally, treatment-related side effects and reduced patient compliance were only responsible for omission of MRI in 9% of radiation fractions. The study workflow took a median time of 61 min (range 47-99 min); duration for radiotherapy alone was 13 min (range 7-26 min). Patient positioning, MR imaging and CT imaging including patient repositioning and the shuttle transfer required median times of 10 min (range 7-14 min), 26 min (range 15-60 min), 5 min (range 3-8 min) and 8 min (range 2-36 min), respectively. To assess feasibility of shuttle-based MRgRT, the reference point coordinates for the x, y and z axis were determined for the MR images and CT obtained prior to the first treatment fraction and correlated with the coordinates of the planning CT. In our dataset, the median positional difference between MR imaging and CT-based imaging based on fiducial matching between MR and CT imaging was equal to or less than 2 mm in all spatial directions. The limited space in the MR scanner influenced patient selection, as the bore of the scanner had to accommodate the immobilization device and the constructed stereotactic frame. Therefore, obese, extremely muscular or very tall patients could not be included in this trial in addition to patients for whom exposure to MRI was generally judged inappropriate.

conclusionThis trial demonstrated for the first time the feasibility and patient compliance of a shuttle-based off-line approach to MRgRT of pelvic malignancies.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCone-Beam Computed TomographyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient PositioningPelvic NeoplasmsProspective StudiesRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedMRgRTMRIRadiotherapyShuttle

Identifiers

PMID29349601
OpenAlexW2789542450

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.