ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2019
On-line dose-guidance to account for inter-fractional motion during proton therapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surveying the clinical practice of treatment adaptation and motion management in particle therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Proton therapy planning and image-guidance strategies within a randomized controlled trial for high-risk prostate cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Impact of interfractional target motion in locally advanced cervical cancer patients treated with spot scanning proton therapy using an internal target volume strategy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
- Developments in deep learning based corrections of cone beam computed tomography to enable dose calculations for adaptive radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeProton therapy (PT) of extra-cranial tumour sites is challenged by density changes caused by inter-fractional organ motion. In this study we investigate MATERIALS AND
methodsOn-line DGPT involved re-calculating dose distributions with the isocenter shifted up to 15 mm from the position corresponding to conventional soft-tissue based image-guided PT (IGPT). The method was applied to patient models with simulated prostate/seminal vesicle target motion of ±3, ±5 and ±10 mm along the three cardinal axes. Treatment plans were created using either two lateral (gantry angles of 90°/270°) or two lateral oblique fields (gantry angles of 35°/325°). Target coverage and normal tissue doses from DGPT were compared to both soft-tissue and bony anatomy based IGPT.
resultsDGPT improved the dose distributions relative to soft-tissue based IGPT for 39 of 90 simulation scenarios using lateral fields and for 50 of 90 scenarios using lateral oblique fields. The greatest benefits of DGPT were seen for large motion, e.g. a median target coverage improvement of 13% was found for 10 mm anterior motion with lateral fields. DGPT also improved the dose distribution in comparison to bony anatomy IGPT in all cases. The best strategy was often to move the fields back towards the original target position prior to the simulated target motion.
conclusionDGPT has the potential to better account for large inter-fractional organ motion in the pelvis than IGPT.
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.