Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33953495›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical physics

The Role of Plan Robustness Evaluation in Comparing Protons and Photons Plans - An Application on IMPT and IMRT Plans in Skull Base Chordomas.

Manthala Padannayil Noufal, Lamberto Widesott, Shamurailatpam Dayananda Sharma, Roberto Righetto, Marco Cianchetti, Marco Schwarz

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Robust IMPT and follow-up toxicity in skull base chordoma and chondrosarcoma-a single-institution clinical experience.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Manthala Padannayil NoufalDepartment of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Lamberto WidesottDepartment of Proton Therapy, Azienda Provinciale Per I Servizi Sanitari, Trento, Italy.
Shamurailatpam Dayananda SharmaDepartment of Medical Physics, Apollo Proton Cancer Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Roberto RighettoDepartment of Proton Therapy, Azienda Provinciale Per I Servizi Sanitari, Trento, Italy.
Marco CianchettiDepartment of Proton Therapy, Azienda Provinciale Per I Servizi Sanitari, Trento, Italy.
Marco SchwarzDepartment of Proton Therapy, Azienda Provinciale Per I Servizi Sanitari, Trento, Italy.
Provincia Autonoma di Trento · ITApollo Proton Cancer Centre · INIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics And Applications · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyze robustness of treatment plans optimized using different approaches in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and investigate the necessity of robust optimization and evaluation in intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans for skull base chordomas. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo photon plans, standard IMRT and robustly optimized IMRT (RB-IMRT), and two IMPT plans, robustly optimized multi field optimization (MFO) and hybrid-MFO (HB-MFO), were created in RayStation TPS for five patients previously treated using single field uniform optimization (SFO). Both set-up and range uncertainties were incorporated during robust optimization of IMPT plans whereas only set-up uncertainty was used in RB-IMRT. The dosimetric outcomes from the five planning techniques were compared for every patient using standard dose volume indices and integral dose (ID) estimated for target and organs at risk (OARs). Robustness of each treatment plan was assessed by introducing set-up uncertainties of ±3 mm along the three translational axes and, only in protons, an additional range uncertainty of ±3.5%.

resultsAll the five nominal plans provided comparable and clinically acceptable target coverage. In comparison to nominal plans, worst case decrease in D

conclusionBased on the five cases presented in the current study, all proton planning techniques (SFO, MFO and HB-MFO) were robust both for target coverage and OARs sparing. Standard IMRT plans were less robust than proton plans in regards to high doses to neurological OARs. However, robust optimization applied to IMRT resulted in improved robustness in both target coverage and high doses to OARs. Robustness evaluation may be considered as a part of plan evaluation procedure even in IMRT.

Indexed as

Chordomasintegral doseIntensity-modulated proton therapyintensity-modulated radiotherapyproton beam therapyrobust evaluationrobust optimization

Identifiers

PMID33953495
PMCPMC8074721
OpenAlexW3128097378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.