Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30160025›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018

Framework for the quantitative assessment of adaptive radiation therapy protocols.

Sarah Weppler, Harvey Quon, Robyn Banerjee, Colleen Schinkel, Wendy Smith

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Sarah WepplerDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Harvey QuonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Robyn BanerjeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Colleen SchinkelDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Wendy SmithDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
University of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdaptive radiation therapy (ART) "flags," such as change in external body contour or relative weight loss, are widely used to identify which head and neck cancer (HNC) patients may benefit from replanned treatment. Despite the popularity of ART, few published quantitative approaches verify the accuracy of replan candidate identification, especially with regards to the simple flagging approaches that are considered current standard of practice. We propose a quantitative evaluation framework, demonstrated through the assessment of a single institution's clinical ART flag: change in body contour exceeding 1.5 cm.

methodsGround truth replan criteria were established by surveying HNC radiation oncologists. Patient-specific dose deviations were approximated by using weekly acquired CBCT images to deform copies of the CT simulation, yielding during treatment "synthetic CTs." The original plan reapplied to the synthetic CTs estimated interfractional dose deposition and truth table analysis compared ground truth flagging with the clinical ART metric. This process was demonstrated by assessing flagged fractions for 15 HNC patients whose body contour changed by >1.5 cm at some point in their treatment.

resultsSurvey results indicated that geometric shifts of high-dose volumes relative to image-guided radiation therapy alignment of bony anatomy were of most interest to HNC physicians. This evaluation framework successfully identified a fundamental discrepancy between the "truth" criteria and the body contour flagging protocol selected to identify changes in central axis dose. The body contour flag had poor sensitivity to survey-derived major violation criteria (0%-28%). The sensitivity of a random sample for comparable violation/flagging frequencies was 27%.

conclusionsThese results indicate that centers should establish ground truth replan criteria to assess current standard of practice ART protocols. In addition, more effective replan flags may be tested and identified according to the proposed framework. Such improvements in ART flagging may contribute to better clinical resource allocation and patient outcome.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCone-Beam Computed TomographyHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective Studiesadaptive radiation therapyhead and neck cancerquality assurance

Identifiers

PMID30160025
PMCPMC6236815
OpenAlexW2889102373

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.