ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2018
Plan quality for high-risk prostate cancer treated with high field magnetic resonance imaging guided radiotherapy.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of margin reduction on radiation dose distribution of ultra-hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy utilizing a 1.5-T MR-Linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Dosimetric analysis of MR-LINAC treatment plans for salvage spine SBRT re-irradiation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Dosimetric comparison of MR-linac-based IMRT and conventional VMAT treatment plans for prostate cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- MR-guided proton therapy: Impact of magnetic fields on the detector response.Medical physics · 2021Article
- MR-Linac Radiotherapy - The Beam Angle Selection Problem.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a simplified optimizer for MR-guided adaptive RT in case of pancreatic cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Article
- Planning feasibility of extremely hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging guided linear accelerator.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of plan quality in radiotherapy planning with an MR-linac.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
- Impact of 1.5 T Magnetic Field on Treatment Plan Quality in MR-Guided Radiotherapy: Typical Phantom Test Cases.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeDaily radiotherapy plan adaptation facilitated by a high field magnetic resonance linac (MRL) may potentially reduce the treated volume due to a reduction of the setup uncertainty. However, the technology also imposes limitations to the treatment technique compared to a standard linac. This study investigated the clinical quality of MRL treatment plans against current standard plans using identical planning target volume margins for high-risk prostate cancer patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty consecutive patients planned with our current clinical standard TPS and treated with single arc VMAT on standard linacs with 78 Gy in the prostate and 56 Gy for pelvic lymph nodes over 39 fractions were included. In addition, IMRT treatment plans for delivery by a 1.5 T MRL, using standard margins and dose objectives, were made in a dedicated TPS. Mean population dose volume histograms (DVH) and dose metrics were analyzed and clinical plan quality was evaluated by an oncologist.
resultsAll MRL plans were considered clinically acceptable, and DVH analysis showed an overall high similarity to dose distributions of the clinically delivered plans. Mean target coverage was similar (78.0 Gy vs 77.8 Gy). Small but statistically significant differences were seen in doses to organs at risk; on average MRL plans reduced dose to the bladder (46.2 vs 48.3 Gy) compared to standard plans, while dose was higher to the bowel (29.2 vs 26.6 Gy) and penile bulb (16.5 vs 10.8 Gy).
conclusionMRL treatment plans were clinically acceptable and similar in quality to the current standard.
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.