ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020
A Special Report on 2019 International Planning Competition and a Comprehensive Analysis of Its Results.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Replacing manual planning with automatic iterative planning for locally advanced rectal cancer VMAT treatment.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Fully automated volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for locally advanced rectal cancer: feasibility and efficiency.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- Flourish of Proton and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Toward Systematic Assessment and Improvement of Radiation Therapy Plan Quality of Cooperative Group Trial Submissions: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group.Practical radiation oncologyArticle
- Planning and Dosimetry Study of Dynamic Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy for Carcinomas of the Pharynx Using 6MV Flattening Filter and Flattening Filter-free Beams.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this work is to introduce the 2019 International Planning Competition and to analyze its results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) case using the simultaneous integrated boost approach was selected. The plan quality was evaluated by using a ranking system in accordance with practice guidelines. Planners used their clinical Treatment Planning System (TPS) to generate the best possible plan along with a survey, designed to obtain medical physics aspects information. We investigated the quality of the large population of plans designed by worldwide planners using different planning and delivery systems. The correlations of plan quality with relevant planner characteristics (work experience, department scale, and competition experience) and with technological parameters (TPS and modality) were examined.
resultsThe number of the qualified plans was 287 with a wide range of scores (38.61-97.99). The scores showed statistically significant differences by the following factors: 1) department scale: the mean score (89.76 ± 8.36) for planners from the departments treating >2,000 patients annually was the highest of all; 2) competition experience: the mean score for the 107 planners with previous competition experience was 88.92 ± 9.59, statistically significantly from first-time participants (
conclusionThe 2019 international planning competition was carried out successfully, and its results were analyzed. Plan quality was not correlated with work experiences or the TPS used, but it was correlated with department scale, modality, and competition experience. These findings differed from those reported in previous studies.
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.