ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Definition of internal target volumes based on planar X-ray fluoroscopic images for lung and hepatic stereotactic body radiation therapy. Comparison to inhale/exhale CT technique.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare tumor motion amplitudes measured with 2D fluoroscopic images (FI) and with an inhale/exhale CT (IECT) technique MATERIALS AND
methodsTumor motion of 52 patients (39 lung patients and 13 liver patients) was obtained with both FI and IECT. For FI, tumor detection and tracking was performed by means of a software developed by the authors. Motion amplitude and, thus, internal target volume (ITV), were defined to cover the positions where the tumor spends 95% of the time. The algorithm was validated against two different respiratory motion phantoms. Motion amplitude in IECT was defined as the difference in the position of the centroid of the gross tumor volume in the image sets of both treatments.
resultsImportant differences exist when defining ITVs with FI and IECT. Overall, differences larger than 5 mm were obtained for 49%, 31%, and 9.6% of the patients in Superior-Inferior (SI), Anterior-Posterior (AP), and Lateral (LAT) directions, respectively. For tumor location, larger differences were found for tumors in the liver (73.6% SI, 27.3% AP, and 6.7% in LAT had differences larger than 5 mm), while tumors in the upper lobe benefitted less using FI (differences larger than 5 mm were only present in 27.6% (SI), 36.7% (AP), and 0% (LAT) of the patients).
conclusionsUse of FI with the linac built-in CBCT system is feasible for ITV definition. Large differences between motion amplitudes detected with FI and IECT methods were found. The method presented in this work based on FI could represent an improvement in ITV definition compared to the method based on IECT due to FI permits tumor motion acquisition in a more realistic situation than IECT.
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.