ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020
Quantitative Comparison of Knowledge-Based and Manual Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge-Based RapidPlan Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Model in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Quality and mechanical efficiency of automated knowledge-based planning for volumetric-modulated arc therapy in head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Proof of concept of fully automated adaptive workflow for head and neck radiotherapy treatments with a conventional linear accelerator.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of Single-Optimization Knowledge-Based Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Model Plan in Nasopharyngeal Carcinomas.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Dose prediction for cervical cancer VMAT patients with a full-scale 3D-cGAN-based model and the comparison of different input data on the prediction results.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Knowledge-based planning for the radiation therapy treatment plan quality assurance for patients with head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Development and Clinical Implementation of an Automated Virtual Integrative Planner for Radiation Therapy of Head and Neck Cancer.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- 'Line' Constraints Optimization for Improved Dose Distribution in Locally Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using Knowledge-Based Planning.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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTo validate the feasibility and efficiency of a fully automatic knowledge-based planning (KBP) method for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) cases, with special attention to the possible way that the success rate of auto-planning can be improved. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A knowledge-based dose volume histogram (DVH) prediction model was developed based on 99 formerly treated NPC patients, by means of which the optimization objectives and the corresponding priorities for intensity modulation radiation therapy (IMRT) planning were automatically generated for each head and neck organ at risk (OAR). The automatic KBP method was thus evaluated in 17 new NPC cases with comparison to manual plans (MP) and expert plans (EXP) in terms of target dose coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and normal tissue protection. To quantify the plan quality, a metric was applied for plan evaluation. The variation in the plan quality and time consumption among planners was also investigated.
resultsWith comparable target dose distributions, the KBP method achieved a significant dose reduction in critical organs such as the optic chiasm (p<0.001), optic nerve (p=0.021), and temporal lobe (p<0.001), but failed to spare the spinal cord (p<0.001) compared with MPs and EXPs. The overall plan quality evaluation gave mean scores of 144.59±11.48, 142.71±15.18, and 144.82±15.17, respectively, for KBPs, MPs, and EXPs (p=0.259). A total of 15 out of 17 KBPs (i.e., 88.24%) were approved by our physician as clinically acceptable.
conclusionThe automatic KBP method using the DVH prediction model provided a possible way to generate clinically acceptable plans in a short time for NPC patients.
Indexed as
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.