Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30481228›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

A new plan quality objective function for determining optimal collimator combinations in prostate cancer treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy using CyberKnife.

Maria Varnava, Iori Sumida, Hirokazu Mizuno, Hiroya Shiomi, Osamu Suzuki, Yasuo Yoshioka, Kazuhiko Ogawa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria VarnavaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Iori SumidaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7669-0325
Hirokazu MizunoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Hiroya ShiomiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Osamu SuzukiDepartment of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Yasuo YoshiokaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Kazuhiko OgawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
The University of Osaka · JPJapanese Foundation For Cancer Research · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with CyberKnife for prostate cancer has long treatment times compared with conventional radiotherapy. This arises the need for designing treatment plans with short execution times. We propose an objective function for plan quality evaluation, which was used to determine an optimal combination between small and large collimators based on short treatment times and clinically acceptable dose distributions. Data from 11 prostate cancer patients were used. For each patient, 20 plans were created based on all combinations between one small (⌀ 10-25 mm) and one large (⌀ 35-60 mm) Iris collimator size. The objective function was assigned to each combination as a penalty, such that plans with low penalties were considered superior. This function considered the achievement of dosimetric planning goals, tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability, relative seriality parameter, and treatment time. Two methods were used to determine the optimal combination. First, we constructed heat maps representing the mean penalty values and standard deviations of the plans created for each collimator combination. The combination giving a plan with the smallest mean penalty and standard deviation was considered optimal. Second, we created two groups of superior plans: group A plans were selected by histogram analysis and group B plans were selected by choosing the plan with the lowest penalty from each patient. In both groups, the most used small and large collimators were assumed to represent the optimal combination. The optimal combinations obtained from the heat maps included the 25 mm as a small collimator, giving small/large collimator sizes of 25/35, 25/40, 25/50, and 25/60 mm. The superior-group analysis indicated that 25/50 mm was the optimal combination. The optimal Iris combination for prostate cancer treatment using CyberKnife was determined to be a collimator size between 25 mm (small) and 50 mm (large).

Indexed as

Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAgedHumansMaleOrgans at RiskProstatic NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30481228
PMCPMC6258559
OpenAlexW2902377800

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.