ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2018
A biological modelling based comparison of radiotherapy plan robustness using photons vs protons for focal prostate boosting.
Article in Physics and imaging 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A study of the clinical, treatment planning and dosimetric feasibility of dose painting in external beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2020Article
- A planning study of focal dose escalations to multiparametric MRI-defined dominant intraprostatic lesions in prostate proton radiation therapy.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Imaging for radiation treatment planning and monitoring in prostate Cancer: Precision, personalization, individualization of therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeFocal tumour boosting is currently explored in radiotherapy of prostate cancer to increase tumour control. In this study we applied dose response models for both tumour control and normal tissue complications to explore the benefit of proton therapy (PT) combined with focal tumour boosting, also when accounting for inter-fractional motion. MATERIALS AND
methodsCT scans of seven patients fused with MRI-based index volumes were used. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created for each patient; one with conventional dose (77 Gy) to the entire prostate, and one with an additional integrated boost (total dose of 95 Gy) to the index lesion. Two corresponding intensity modulated PT (IMPT) plans were created using two lateral opposing spot scanning beams. All plans were evaluated using an MRI-based tumour control probability (TCP) model and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for the rectum and bladder. Plan robustness was evaluated using dose re-calculations on repeat cone-beam CTs.
resultsAcross all plans, median TCP increased from 86% (range: 59-98%) without boost to 97% (range: 96-99%) with boost. IMPT plans had lower rectum NTCPs (e.g. 3% vs. 4% for boost plans) but higher bladder NTCPs (20% vs. 18% for boost plans), yet only the bladder NTCPs remained different in the cone beam CT-based re-calculations.
conclusionsFocal tumour boosting can be delivered with either VMAT or protons, and increases the predicted TCP. The small benefit of IMPT when assessing the planned dose distributions was lost when accounting for inter-fractional motion.
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.