Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31342106›Full record

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

Results of a multicenter intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning comparison study for a sample prostate cancer case.

Thorsten Frenzel, Dirk Albers, Maximilian Grohmann, Andreas Krüll

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Thorsten FrenzelOutpatient Center of the UKE GmbH, Department for Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. frenzel@uke.uni-hamburg.de.
Dirk AlbersDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Maximilian GrohmannDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Andreas KrüllOutpatient Center of the UKE GmbH, Department for Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the influence of different medical physicists, photon energies, treatment planning systems and treatment machines on the resulting external beam radiotherapy dose distribution for a sample prostate cancer case.

methodsA pre-contoured computed tomography (CT) dataset containing planning target volume 1 (PTV1) prostate and seminal vesicles (single dose [SD] 1.8 Gy, total dose [TD] 59.4 Gy), PTV2 prostate (simultaneously integrated boost [SIB], SD 2.0 Gy, TD 66 Gy), PTV3 prostate and seminal vesicles approach (SD 1.8 Gy, TD 73.8 Gy/80.4 Gy SIB) as well as organs at risk (OAR: rectum, bladder, femoral heads, bowel, anus) was offered to the members of the task group IMRT (intensity-modulated radiation therapy) of the German Society for Medical Physics. The purpose was to calculate one combined treatment plan (TP) for PTV1 and PTV2, as well as a separate one for PTV3. Dose volume histograms (DVH), different dose values, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI) and a new "better than average score" were used to analyse the dose distributions.

resultsAltogether 44 institutions took part in this study and submitted acceptable dose distributions for the PTVs. However, there were statistically significant differences, especially for the doses administered to the OAR, such as rectum, bladder and femoral heads. Differences between the treatment plans were not easily detectable by visual inspection of the isodose distribution. Dose maxima may occur outside the PTV. Even though scoring indices are already published, the new "better than average score" was needed to identify a plan that minimises dose to all OAR simultaneously.

conclusionDifferent medical physicists or dosimetrists, photon energies, treatment planning systems, and treatment machines have an impact on the resulting dose distribution. However, the differences only become apparent when comparing DVH, analysing dose values, comparing CI, HI, GI, as well as reviewing the dose distribution in every single plane. A new score was introduced to identify treatment plans that simultaneously deliver a low dose to all OAR. Such inter- and intra-institutional comparison studies are needed to explore different treatment planning strategies; however, there is still no automatic solution for an "optimal" treatment plan.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgans at RiskProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSeminal VesiclesTomography, X-Ray ComputedBetter than average scoreComparison studyIntensity modulated radiation therapyProstate cancerTreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID31342106

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.