ArticleScientific reports2021
Practical aspects of the application of helical tomotherapy for craniospinal irradiation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Tomotherapy for cranio-spinal irradiation.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Review
- Evolution of dosimetric treatment planning for pediatric total lymphoid irradiation (TLI): a single-institution experience.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2023Article
- Pulmonary toxicity of craniospinal irradiation using helical tomotherapy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the practical aspects of the application of craniospinal irradiation using helical tomotherapy (HT-CSI) by evaluating interfractional setup errors and intrafractional movement during each treatment in 83 patients undergoing HT-CSI between January 2014 and December 2018. Interfractional setup errors in each axis (mediolateral; ML, craniocaudal; CC, and anteroposterior; AP) were assessed as differences between pre-treatment megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) images scanned (zygomatic arch to the C4 spine) and planning CT images. Intrafractional movements were evaluated as the difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment MVCT (T12-L4 spine) images at each fraction. Median interfractional setup error was acceptable in every axis (ML: 1.6 mm, CC: 1.9 mm, AP: 3.1 mm). Seven patients (8.4%) experienced significant intrafractional displacement from 1 to 10 fractions (0.34% for ML, 0.74% for CC, 1.21% for AP). Weight loss grade 1+ during treatment (p = 0.016) was an independent risk factor for significant intrafractional displacement. The risk factor for significant intrafractional movement in pediatric patients was weight loss grade 1+ (p = 0.020), while there was no factor in adults. HT-CSI could be a feasible treatment modality with acceptable setup verification. Inter- and intrafractional errors were acceptable; paying attention to weight loss during treatment is necessary, especially in pediatric 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.