Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33458433›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2019

Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of the differences between rigid and deformable registration to assess interfraction motion during pelvic radiotherapy.

Ingrid White, Dualta McQuaid, Helen McNair, Alex Dunlop, Steven Court, Naomi Hopkins, Karen Thomas, David Dearnaley, Shree Bhide, Susan Lalondrelle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Imaging science and development in modern high-precision radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ingrid WhiteInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Dualta McQuaidInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Helen McNairInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Alex DunlopInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Steven CourtInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Naomi HopkinsInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Karen ThomasInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
David DearnaleyInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Shree BhideInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Susan LalondrelleInstitute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.
National Health Service · GBInstitute of Cancer Research · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 10588Cancer Research UK 12518Cancer Research UK 19727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeAppropriate internal margins are essential to avoid a geographical miss in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for endometrial cancer (EC). This study evaluated interfraction target motion using rigid and non-rigid approximation strategies and calculated internal margins based on random and systematic errors using traditional rigid margin recipes. Dosimetric impact of target motion was also investigated. MATERIALS AND

methodsCone beam CTs (CBCTs) were acquired days 1-4 and then weekly in 17 patients receiving adjuvant IMRT for EC; a total of 169 CBCTs were analysed. Interfraction motion for the clinical target volume vaginal vault and upper vagina (CTVv) was measured using bony landmarks and deformation vector field displacement (DVFD) within a 1 mm internal wall of CTVv. Patient and population systematic and random errors were estimated and margins calculated. Delivered dose to the CTVv and organs at risk was estimated.

resultsThere was a significant difference in target motion assessment using the different registration strategies (p < 0.05). DVFD up to 30 mm occurred in the anterior/posterior direction, which was not accounted for in PTV margins using rigid margin recipes. Underdosing of CTVv D95% occurred in three patients who had substantial reductions in rectal volume (RV) during treatment. RV relative to the planning CT was moderately correlated with anterior/posterior displacement (r = 0.6) and mean relative RV during treatment was strongly correlated with mean relative RV at CBCT acquired days 1-3 (r = 0.8).

conclusionComplex and extensive geometric changes occur to the CTVv, which are not accounted for in margin recipes using rigid approximation. Contemporary margin recipes and adaptive treatment planning based on non-rigid approximation are recommended.

Indexed as

CBCT, cone beam CTCTVv, clinical target volume vaginal vault and upper vaginaDIR, deformable image registrationDSC, dice similarity coefficientDVFD, deformation vector field displacementEBRT, external beam radiotherapyEC, endometrial cancerIMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapyMDA, mean distance to agreementOARs, organs at riskpCT, planning CTRV, rectal volumeσ, randomΣ, systematic

Identifiers

PMID33458433
PMCPMC7807633
OpenAlexW2929550596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.