Trial reportPloS one2019
Prospective assessment of inter- or intra-fractional variation according to body weight or volume change in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing dose delivery in rectal cancer radiotherapy using CBCT-guided intensity modulated techniques.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2026Article
- Daily adaptive radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma can negatively impact organ at risk dosimetry.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Dose-dependent effects of radiotherapy on body composition, nutritional status, and clinical symptoms in head and neck cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Adaptive radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: The importance of reduced margins.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- The Remove-the-Mask Open-Source head and neck Surface-Guided radiation therapy system.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Assessing setup errors and shifting margins for planning target volume in head, neck, and breast cancer.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Setup uncertainties and appropriate setup margins in the head-tilted supine position of whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT).PloS one · 2022Article
- Body mass index and self-care behaviors related to oral health-related quality of life in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma within three months posttreatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the setup discrepancy between 6D ExacTrac and cone beam computed tomography in spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.PloS one · 2021Article
- Accumulated Dose Deviation of Rotational and Residual Setup Errors on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using MIM Treated by Helical Tomotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to prospectively investigate the association between body weight (ΔBW) or body volume variations (ΔBV) and inter- or intra-fractional variations (Δ(inter) or Δ(intra)) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) undergoing radiotherapy (RT). This study enrolled patients with HNC from December 2015 to December 2017. All patients underwent curative intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) either as definitive or adjuvant treatment. Six-dimensional inter- and intra-fractional variations (Δ(inter) and Δ(intra)) were obtained with ExacTrac (BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany) system. BV was measured 7.5 cm cranio-caudally from the centre using cone beam computed tomography. The BW, BV, and Δ(inter) were calculated based on the value obtained on the first treatment day after each simulation. Both Δ(inter) and Δ(intra) were considered in calculating the optimal margins for planning target volume (PTV), which was calculated using van Herk's formula. In total, 678 fractions with 39 simulations in 22 patients were analysed. The average ΔBW and ΔBV was -0.43±1.90 kg (range, -7.3 to 5.0) and -24.34±69.0 cc (range, -247.15 to 214.88), respectively. In correlation analysis, Δ(intra) was more associated with ΔBW or ΔBV than Δ(inter). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed Δ(intra) could differentiate ΔBW from ΔBV, while Δ(inter) could not. The optimal margins for PTV considering both Δ(inter) and Δ(intra) were 3.70 mm, 4.52 mm, and 5.12 mm for the right-left, superior-inferior, and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. In conclusion, the PTV margin of 6 mm for anterior-posterior direction and 5 mm for the other directions were needed. ΔBW or ΔBV correlated with Δ(intra) rather than Δ(inter). Therefore, ΔBW or ΔBV should be assessed for accurate IMRT in patients with HNC.
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.