Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30523417›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2019

CT-based dose recalculations in head and neck cancer radiotherapy: comparison of daily dose recalculations to less time-consuming approaches.

Simon Wagenblast, Severin Kampfer, Kai J Borm, Stephanie E Combs, Steffi U Pigorsch, Marciana-Nona Duma

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2019. 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.Cancers of the head & neck · 2020
    Review
  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

6 authors.

Simon WagenblastDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Severin KampferDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Kai J BormDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Stephanie E CombsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Steffi U PigorschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Marciana-Nona DumaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Ismaninger Straße 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. Marciana.Duma@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0205-4411

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of this study was to investigate if daily dose recalculations are necessary or if less time-consuming approaches can be used to identify dose differences to the planned dose in patients with head and neck cancers (H&N).

methodsFor 12 H&N patients treated with helical tomotherapy, daily dose calculations were performed retrospectively. Four different summation doses (SuDo) were calculated: DayDo (daily dose calculation), MVCTx2, MVCTx5, and MVCTx10 (dose calculations every second, fifth, and tenth fraction). Dose recalculations were depicted on the last contoured mega voltage CT (MVCT). The DayDo was compared to the planned dose and to the less time-consuming SuDo scenarios. The doses were assessed for the planning target volume (PTV) and the organs at risk (OARs): mandible (mand), spinal cord (SC), spinal cord +5 mm (SC+5 mm), parotid glands (PG).

resultsThe ipsilateral PG, contralateral PG, and PTV volume decreased by -22.5% (range: -34.8 to 5.2%), -19.5% (-31.5 to 15.8%), and -2.6% (-16.7 to 0.2%), respectively. There was a significant median mean dose (Dmean) dose difference for DayDo compared to the planned dose for PG total of 1.9 Gy (-3.3 to 7.3 Gy). But less time-consuming SuDo compared to DayDo showed statistically significant but not clinically relevant (<2%) dose differences for several organs. Hence the small dose difference to the gold standard (DayDo), we recommend dose recalculations every fifth MVCT in order to identify the occurrence of dose differences compared to the planned dose.

conclusionDaily dose calculations are the most precise to assess dose differences between actual and planned dose. Dose recalculations on every fifth MVCT (i. e., weekly control CTs) are an applicable and time-saving way of identifying patients with significant dose differences compared to the planned dose.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy DosageAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgans at RiskOtorhinolaryngologic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTime FactorsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdaptive radiotherapyHelical tomotherapyIGRTIMRTMVCT cancers

Identifiers

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.