ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2018
Clinical and radiobiological evaluation of a method for planning target volume generation dependent on organ-at-risk exclusions in magnetic resonance imaging-based prostate 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging science and development in modern high-precision radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeDue to a smaller target volume when delineating prostate on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), margins may be too tight as compared to computed tomography (CT) delineation, potentially reducing tumor control probability (TCP) in prostate radiotherapy. This study evaluated a clinically implemented MRI-based target expansion method to provide adequate margins yet limit organ-at-risk (OAR) dose as compared to CT-based delineation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients in this study were treated to 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions via intensity modulated radiotherapy using an MRI-based expansion method, which excluded OARs when performing a 5 mm isotropic (except 4 mm posterior) expansion from gross tumor volume to clinical target volume (CTV), followed by an isotropic 5 mm expansion to generate the planning target volume (PTV). Ten cases were re-planned using CT-delineated prostate with CTV-to-PTV expansion of isotropic 8 mm, except for a 5 mm posterior expansion, with comparison of PTV volumes, TCP and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) to the MRI-based method. Under IRB approved protocol, we retrospectively evaluated 51 patients treated with the MRI-based method for acute bladder and rectal toxicity with CTC-AE version 4.0 used for scoring.
resultsMRI-based PTV volume differed by 4% compared to CT-based PTV volume. Radiobiological calculated TCP of the MRI-based method was found comparable to CT-based methods with an average equivalent uniform dose of 80.5 Gy and 80.1 Gy respectively. Statistically significant decrease in bladder NTCP (toxicity Grade 2 and above for 5% complications within 5 years post radiotherapy) was observed in the MRI-based method. Outcomes data collected showed 65% and 100% of patients studied experienced Grade 0/1 bladder and rectal acute toxicity respectively. Grade 2 bladder toxicity was indicated in the remaining 35% of patients studied with no Grade 3 toxicity reported.
conclusionsResults showed comparable PTV volume with MRI-based method, and NTCP was reduced while maintaining TCP. Clinically, bladder and rectal toxicities were observed to be minimal.
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.