Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33741469›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2021

Anatomic changes in head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy: Comparison between robust optimization and online adaptation.

Arthur Lalonde, Mislav Bobić, Brian Winey, Joost Verburg, Gregory C Sharp, Harald Paganetti

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Arthur LalondeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA. Electronic address: alalonde@mgh.harvard.edu.
Mislav BobićDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA; ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Brian WineyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Joost VerburgDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Gregory C SharpDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Harald PaganettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Harvard University · US

Funding

Project 3: Enhanced Sensitivity of Tumors to Proton Beam Therapy: Mechanisms and Biomarkers.P01CA261669 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HONG, THEODORE S · 2021 to 2025
$14.0M
Fast Individualized Delivery Adaptation in Proton TherapyR01CA229178 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI PAGANETTI, HARALD · 2019 to 2023
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA261669NCI NIH HHS R01 CA229178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background/purposeSetup variations and anatomical changes can severely affect the quality of head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatments. The impact of these changes can be alleviated by increasing the plan's robustness a priori, or by adapting the plan online. This work compares these approaches in the context of head and neck IMPT. MATERIALS/

methodsA representative cohort of 10 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients with daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was evaluated. For each patient, three IMPT plans were created: 1- a classical robust optimization (cRO) plan optimized on the planning CT, 2- an anatomical robust optimization (aRO) plan additionally including the two first daily CBCTs and 3- a plan optimized without robustness constraints, but online-adapted (OA) daily, using a constrained spot intensity re-optimization technique only.

resultsThe cumulative dose following OA fulfilled the clinical objective of both the high-risk and low-risk clinical target volumes (CTV) coverage in all 10 patients, compared to 8 for aRO and 4 for cRO. aRO did not significantly increase the dose to most organs at risk compared to cRO, although the integral dose was higher. OA significantly reduced the integral dose to healthy tissues compared to both robust methods, while providing equivalent or superior target coverage.

conclusionUsing a simple spot intensity re-optimization, daily OA can achieve superior target coverage and lower dose to organs at risk than robust optimization methods.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsProton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAnatomical changesHead and Neck cancerIntensity-modulated proton therapyOnline-adaptive proton therapyRobust treatment planning

Identifiers

PMID33741469
PMCPMC8205952
OpenAlexW3137762406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.