Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32095573›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2018

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation in prostate cancer: A dosimetric and plan robustness study between photons and protons.

Ashley L K Ong, K W Ang, Zubin Master, Sharon M M Wong, Jeffrey K L Tuan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Consensus Statement on Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer.International journal of particle therapy · 2021
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ashley L K OngDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
K W AngDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Zubin MasterDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Sharon M M WongDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
Jeffrey K L TuanDivision of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore.
National Cancer Centre Singapore · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the dosimetric impact and plan robustness of using Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) in patients that requires prophylactic pelvic lymph nodes (PLNs) irradiation for prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND

methodsFive intermediate to high-risk prostate patients previously treated using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), were selected for this study. Comparative proton radiotherapy plans were generated, where a three-field intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan was for the phase 1 planning target volume (PTV1) with PLNs. A technique with two posterior oblique fields using single field uniform dose (SFUD) was used for phase 2 (PTV2) volume, that comprises of the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles (Pro + proxSVs). Plan evaluation was performed on PTV coverage and dose to the organs at risk (OARs) using VMAT plans as a baseline (BL). Robust analysis on clinical target volume (CTV) coverage for the PBS plans was simulated with a 3 and 5 mm setup errors and a 3.5% range uncertainty.

resultsFor target coverage, PTV1 and PTV2 showed negligible differences with a comparable homogeneity index (HI) values for both modalities. Proton plans produced a statistically significant lower mean dose to the bladder (32.5 Gy(RBE) vs. 46.5 Gy) and rectum (33.6 Gy(RBE) vs. 42.7 Gy). Dose to the bladder and rectum was equivalent at the high dose region. For the bowel cavity, the mean dose for proton plans were 45% lower compared to VMAT plans. Similarly, proton plans were able to achieve an overall reduction in integral dose for both treatment phase. CTV coverage remained high with all the simulated setup and range errors.

conclusionsProposed beam geometries for PTV1 and PTV2 proton plans presented good treatment accuracy with similar target coverage as the VMAT plans. Better sparing of OARs was achieved at the low-medium dose region for the proton plans.

Indexed as

IMPTPBSPelvic lymph nodesProstate cancerRobust analysisVMAT

Identifiers

PMID32095573
PMCPMC7033791
OpenAlexW2796409217

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.