ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Three IMRT advanced planning tools: A multi-institutional side-by-side comparison.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fully automated volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for locally advanced rectal cancer: feasibility and efficiency.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- Using feasibility dose-volume histograms to reduce intercampus plan quality variability for head-and-neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Automated Treatment Planning and Organ Dose Prediction for Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy.Cureus · 2021Article
- Dose-volume histogram analysis and clinical evaluation of knowledge-based plans with manual objective constraints for pharyngeal cancer.Journal of radiation research · 2020Article
- Quantitative Comparison of Knowledge-Based and Manual Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Incorporating Case-Based Reasoning for Radiation Therapy Knowledge Modeling: A Pelvic Case Study.Technology in cancer research & treatment · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess three advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools on the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality and consistency when compared to the clinically approved plans, referred as manual plans, which were planned without using any of these advanced planning tools. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree advanced radiation therapy treatment planning tools, including auto-planning, knowledge-based planning, and multiple criteria optimization, were assessed on 20 previously treated clinical cases. Three institutions participated in this study, each with expertise in one of these tools. The twenty cases were retrospectively selected from Cleveland Clinic, including five head-and-neck (HN) cases, five brain cases, five prostate with pelvic lymph nodes cases, and five spine cases. A set of general planning objectives and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose constraints for each disease site from Cleveland Clinic was shared with other two institutions. A total of 60 IMRT research plans (20 from each institution) were designed with the same beam configuration as in the respective manual plans. For each disease site, detailed isodoseline distributions and dose volume histograms for a randomly selected representative case were compared among the three research plans and manual plan. In addition, dosimetric endpoints of five cases for each site were compared.
resultsCompared to the manual plans, the research plans using advanced tools showed substantial improvement for the HN patient cases, including the maximum dose to the spinal cord and brainstem and mean dose to the parotid glands. For the brain, prostate, and spine cases, the four types of plans were comparable based on dosimetric endpoint comparisons.
conclusionWith minimal planner interventions, advanced treatment planning tools are clinically useful, producing a plan quality similarly to or better than manual plans, improving plan consistency. For difficult cases such as HN cancer, advanced planning tools can further reduce radiation doses to numerous OARs while delivering adequate dose to the tumor targets.
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.