ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2019
Retrospective study comparing MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) setup strategies for prostate treatment: repositioning vs. replanning.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluations of Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Radiotherapy (MRIgRT): A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- A cone-beam computed tomography based workflow for online adaptive ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Dosimetric evaluation of ultrafractionated dose escalation with simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic lesion using 1.5-Tesla MR-Linac in localized prostate cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Article
- The impact of margin reduction on radiation dose distribution of ultra-hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy utilizing a 1.5-T MR-Linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Analysis of online plan adaptation for 1.5T magnetic resonance-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgSBRT) of prostate cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Effects of Irradiation on Brain Tumors Using MR-Based Electrical Conductivity Imaging.Cancers · 2022Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiotherapy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: Trade-off between planning target volume margin and online plan adaption.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Dosimetric comparison of MR-linac-based IMRT and conventional VMAT treatment plans for prostate cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Dosimetric effects of adaptive prostate cancer radiotherapy in an MR-linac workflow.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Online adaptive radiotherapy compared to plan selection for rectal cancer: quantifying the benefit.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Daily adaptive radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer using a high field MR-linac: Initial clinical experiences and assessment of delivered doses compared to a C-arm linac.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared adaptive replanning and repositioning corrections based on soft-tissue matching for prostate cancer by using the magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) system.
methodsA total of 19 patients with prostate cancer were selected retrospectively. Weekly magnetic resonance image (MRI) scans were acquired for 5 weeks for each patient to observe the anatomic changes during the treatment course. Initial intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans (iIMRT) were generated for each patient with 13 coplanar
resultsThe Adaptive plan showed better target coverage during the treatment period, but the change was not significant in the Soft plan. There were significant differences in D
conclusionsPatient repositioning based on the target volume (Soft plan) can relatively retain the target coverage for patients and the OARs remain at a clinically tolerance level during the treatment course. The Adaptive plan did not clinically improve for the dose delivered to OARs, it kept the dose delivered to the target volume constant. However, the Adaptive plan is beneficial when the organ positions and volumes change considerable during treatment.
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.