Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32095564›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology

Cone-Beam CT-based position verification for oesophageal cancer: Evaluation of registration methods and anatomical changes during radiotherapy.

A van Nunen, M J C van der Sangen, M van Boxtel, P M A van Haaren

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Take Action Protocol: A radiation therapist led approach to act on anatomical changes seen on CBCT.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A van NunenDepartment of Radiotherapy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
M J C van der SangenDepartment of Radiotherapy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
M van BoxtelDepartment of Radiotherapy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
P M A van HaarenDepartment of Radiotherapy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Catharina Ziekenhuis · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate different registration methods, setup margins and number of corrections for CBCT-based position verification for oesophageal cancer and to evaluate anatomical changes during the course of radiotherapy treatment.

methodsFrom 50 patients, 440 CBCT-scans were registered automatically using a soft tissue or bone registration algorithm and compared to the clinical match. Moreover, relevant anatomical changes were monitored. A sub-analysis was performed to evaluate if tumour location influenced setup variations. Margin calculation was performed and the number of setup corrections was estimated. Results were compared to a patient group previously treated with MV-EPID based position verification.

resultsCBCT-based setup variations were smaller than EPID-based setup variations, resulting in smaller setup margins of 5.9 mm (RL), 7.5 mm (CC) and 4.7 mm (AP) versus 6.0 mm, 7.8 mm and 5.5 mm, respectively. A reduction in average number of setup corrections per patient was found from 0.75 to 0.36. From all automatically registered CBCT-scans, a clipbox around PTV and vertebras combined with soft tissue registration resulted in the smallest setup margins of 5.9 mm (RL), 7.7 mm (CC), 4.8 mm (AP) and smallest average number of corrections of 0.38. For distally located tumours, a setup margin of 7.7 mm (CC) was required compared to 5.6 mm for proximal tumours. Reduction of GTV volume, heart volume and change in diaphragm position were observed in 16, 10 and 15 patients, respectively.

conclusionsCBCT-based set-up variations are smaller than EPID-based variations and vary according to tumour location. When using kV-CBCT a large variety of anatomical changes is revealed, which cannot be observed with MV-EPID.

Indexed as

AC, AdenocarcinomaAnatomical changesCBCT, Cone Beam Computed TomographyCone-Beam CTCTV, Clinical Target VolumeEPID, Electronic Portal Imaging DeviceEUS, Endoscopic UltraSoundGTV, Gross Tumor VolumeIGRT, Image Guided RadioTherapyIMRT, Intensity Modulated RadiotherapyOAR, Organs at RiskOesophageal cancerPET/CT, Positron Emission Tomography/Computed TomographyPTV, Planning Target VolumeSAL, Shrinking Action LevelSCC, Squamous Cell CarcinomaSetup marginsSetup variationsTPS, Treatment Planning System

Identifiers

PMID32095564
PMCPMC7033772
OpenAlexW2757470438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.