ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2018
Auto- versus human-driven plan in mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma radiation treatment.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Clinical Role of CXCR4-Targeted PET on Lymphoproliferative Disorders: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Radiotherapy for tumors of the mediastinum - state of the art.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2023Review
- Automated treatment planning for liver cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Article
- Article
- Outcome-based multiobjective optimization of lymphoma radiation therapy plans.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- On the Importance of Individualized, Non-Coplanar Beam Configurations in Mediastinal Lymphoma Radiotherapy, Optimized With Automated Planning.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Assessing Axis-specific Set-up Errors in Rectal Cancer Radiotherapy: A Prospective Cone-beam Computed Tomography-Based Study with Body Mass Index Correlation.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnological advances in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) radiation therapy (RT) by high conformal treatments potentially increase control over organs-at-risk (OARs) dose distribution. However, plan optimization remains a time-consuming task with great operator dependent variability. Purpose of the present study was to devise a fully automated pipeline based on the Pinnacle
methodsCT-scans of 10 female patients with SHL were considered. A "butterfly" (BF) volumetric modulated arc therapy was optimized using SmartArc module integrated in Pinnacle
resultsA single AP objective list for SHL was obtained. Compared to the manual plan, both AP-plans offer comparable CIs while AP-ARC also achieved comparable HIs. All plans fulfilled the clinical dose criteria set for OARs: both AP solutions performed at least as good as Manual-BF plan. In particular, AP-ARC outperformed AP-BF in terms of heart sparing involving a lower risk of coronary events and radiation-induced lung fibrosis. Hands-on planning time decreased by a factor of 10 using AP on average.
conclusionsDespite the high interpatient PTV (size and position) variability, it was possible to set a standard SHL AP optimization list with a high level of generalizability. Using the implemented list, the AP module was able to limit OAR doses, producing clinically acceptable plans with stable quality without additional user input. Overall, the AP engine associated to the arc technique represents the best option for SHL.
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.