Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29615079›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2018

Dosimetrical and radiobiological approach to manage the dosimetric shift in the transition of dose calculation algorithm in radiation oncology: how to improve high quality treatment and avoid unexpected outcomes?

Abdulhamid Chaikh, Jarkko Ojala, Catherine Khamphan, Robin Garcia, Jean Yves Giraud, Juliette Thariat, Jacques Balosso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Abdulhamid ChaikhDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes (CHUGA), Grenoble, France. abdulhamedc@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9926-457X
Jarkko OjalaDepartment of Oncology, Tampere University Hospital (Tays), Tampere, Finland.
Catherine KhamphanDepartment of Medical Physics, Institut Sainte Catherine, Avignon, France.
Robin GarciaDepartment of Medical Physics, Institut Sainte Catherine, Avignon, France.
Jean Yves GiraudDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes (CHUGA), Grenoble, France.
Juliette ThariatLaboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire IN2P3/ENSICAEN - UMR6534 - Unicaen - Normandie Université, Caen, France.
Jacques BalossoDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes (CHUGA), Grenoble, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor a given prescribed dose of radiotherapy, with the successive generations of dose calculation algorithms, more monitor units (MUs) are generally needed. This is due to the implementation of successive improvements in dose calculation: better heterogeneity correction and more accurate estimation of secondary electron transport contribution. More recently, there is the possibility to report the dose-to-medium, physically more accurate compared to the dose-to-water as the reference one. This last point is a recent concern and the main focus of this study.

methodsIn this paper, we propose steps for a general analysis procedure to estimate the dosimetric alterations, and the potential clinical changes, between a reference algorithm and a new one. This includes dosimetric parameters, gamma index, radiobiology indices based on equivalent uniform dose concept and statistics with bootstrap simulation. Finally, we provide a general recommendation on the clinical use of new algorithms regarding the dose prescription or dose limits to the organs at risks.

resultsThe dosimetrical and radiobiological data showed a significant effect, which might exceed 5-10%, of the calculation method on the dose the distribution and clinical outcomes for lung cancer patients. Wilcoxon signed rank paired comparisons indicated that the delivered dose in MUs was significantly increased (> 2%) using more advanced dose calculation methods as compared to the reference one.

conclusionThis paper illustrates and explains the use of dosimetrical, radiobiologcal and statistical tests for dosimetric comparisons in radiotherapy. The change of dose calculation algorithm may induce a dosimetric shift, which has to be evaluated by the physicists and the oncologists. This includes the impact on tumor control and on the risk of toxicity based on normal tissue dose constraints. In fact, the alteration in dose distribution makes it hard to keep exactly the same tumor control probability along with the same normal tissue complication probability.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansRadiation OncologyRadiobiologyRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAcuros XBAnisotropic analytical algorithmDose calculationEquivalent uniform doseRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID29615079
PMCPMC5883266

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.