Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33748441›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2021

The ROCOCO performance scoring system translates dosimetric differences into clinically relevant endpoints: Comparing IMPT to VMAT in an example pilocytic astrocytoma dataset.

Lieke In 't Ven, Erik Roelofs, Macarena Cubillos Mesías, Inge Compter, Yvonne L B Klaver, Robert Jan Smeenk, Geert O Janssens, Johannes H A M Kaanders, Raquel Davila Fajardo, Foppe Oldenburger and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Lieke In 't VenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Erik RoelofsDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Macarena Cubillos MesíasOncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Dresden, Germany.
Inge CompterDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Yvonne L B KlaverHollandPTC, Delft, the Netherlands.
Robert Jan SmeenkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Geert O JanssensDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Johannes H A M KaandersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Raquel Davila FajardoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Foppe OldenburgerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Academic Medical Centers, Location AMC, Amsterdam , the Netherlands.
Dirk de RuysscherDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Esther G C TroostDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Daniëlle B P EekersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastro Clinic · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLOncoRay · DEPrincess Máxima Center · NLUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeProton therapy is expected to outperform photon-based treatment regarding organs at risk (OAR) sparing but to date there is no method to practically measure clinical benefit. Here, we introduce the novel ROCOCO Performance Scoring System (RPSS) translating dose differences into clinically relevant endpoints and apply this to a treatment plan comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in 20 pilocytic astrocytoma patients. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe RPSS was developed on the basis of expert-based weighting factors and toxicity scores per OAR. The imaging datasets of 20 pilocytic astrocytoma patients having undergone radiotherapy were included in this in silico dosimetric comparison trial as proof of principle. For each of these patients, treatment plans to a total dose of 54 Gy (RBE) were generated for VMAT and IMPT and these were compared regarding radiation dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and OARs. The RPSS was calculated for each treatment plan comparing VMAT and IMPT.

resultsIn 40 analysed treatment plans, the average and low dose volumes to various OARs were significantly reduced when using IMPT compared to VMAT (

conclusionThere are dosimetric differences between IMPT and VMAT in pilocytic astrocytoma patients. In absence of clinically validated NTCP models we introduce the RPSS model in order to objectively compare treatment modalities by translating dosimetric differences in potential clinical differences.

Indexed as

CognitionLow grade gliomaOrgan at riskPilocytic astrocytomaProton therapyScoring system

Identifiers

PMID33748441
PMCPMC7966832
OpenAlexW3129778179

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.