ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
A technique to reduce skin toxicity in radiotherapy treatment planning for esophageal cancer.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo demonstrate a specific skin dose limiting technique in radiotherapy treatment planning for esophageal cancer and carry out a comparative analysis combining with clinical cases. MATERIAL AND
methodsThirty patients with cervical and upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma previously treated in our institution were selected. A treatment plan had been finished previously according to the planning parameters directives from physician and delivered for each patient. In this study, we copied the previously delivered plans in radiotherapy treatment planning system and converted a low dose level (usually 5Gy) to a skin dose limiting structure (SDLS), then we set the objective functions of the SDLS in the Pinnacle Inverse Planning module and re-optimize the plans to reduce the skin doses. Finally, we compared the dose distribution and other parameters of target volume and organs at risk (OARs) between the old plans and the new plans.
resultsThere was no significant difference in most of OARs sparing. However, for all plans, the maximum dose to the SDLS decreased from 6145.90 ± 416.96 cGy to 5562.09 ± 616.69 cGy with maximum difference of 1361.30 cGy (P < 0.05), the percentage volume of 40Gy received by the SDLS decreased from (10.20 ± 6.36)% to (5.46 ± 4084)% with maximum difference of 9.89% (P < 0.05). For the target volume, there was no significant difference in the average dose and maximum dose, the approximate minimum dose to the target volume decreased from 5711.28 ± 164.61 cGy to 5584.93 ± 157.70 cGy (P < 0.05), the conformal index and homogeneity index of the target volume were hardly changed.
conclusionIn radiotherapy treatment planning for esophageal cancer patients, the skin dose can be significantly reduced using the skin dose limiting technique, and the impact on the dose to target volume and OARs is little, this technique can be used in most radiotherapy treatment planning.
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.