ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2021
Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can reducing planning safety margins broaden the inclusion criteria for lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is currently indicated for inoperable, early-stage non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Advancements in image-guidance technology continue to improve treatment precision and enable reductions in planning safety margins. We investigated the dosimetric benefits of margin reduction, its potential to extend SABR to more NSCLC patients and the factors influencing plan acceptability.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 61 patients (stage IA-IIIA) treated with conventional radiotherapy. Patients were ineligible for SABR due to tumour size or proximity to organs at risk (OAR). Using Pinnacle auto-planning, three SABR plans were generated for each patient: a regular planning target volume margin plan, a reduced margin plan (gross tumour volume GTV+3 mm) and a non-margin plan. Targets were planned to 48Gy/4 or 50Gy/5 fractions depending on location. Plans were compared in terms of target coverage, OAR doses and dosimetric acceptability based on local guidelines. Predictors of acceptability were investigated using logistic regression analysis.
resultsCompared to regular margin plans, both reduced margin and non-margin plans resulted in significant reductions to almost all dose constraints. Dose conformity was significantly worse in non-margin plans (P < 0.05) and strongly correlated with targets' surface area/volume ratio (R
conclusionMargin reduction significantly reduced OAR doses enabling acceptable plans to be achieved for patients previously excluded from SABR. Indications for lung SABR may broaden as treatment accuracy continues to improve; further work is needed to identify patients most likely to benefit.
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.