Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34151503›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021

Reducing variability among treatment machines using knowledge-based planning for head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer.

Hideaki Hirashima, Mitsuhiro Nakamura, Nobutaka Mukumoto, Ryo Ashida, Kota Fujii, Kiyonao Nakamura, Aya Nakajima, Katsuyuki Sakanaka, Michio Yoshimura, Takashi Mizowaki

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hideaki HirashimaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1548-1970
Mitsuhiro NakamuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Nobutaka MukumotoDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Ryo AshidaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Kota FujiiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Kiyonao NakamuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Aya NakajimaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Katsuyuki SakanakaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Michio YoshimuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Takashi MizowakiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8135-8746
Kyoto University · JP

Funding

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan 18K07700Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan JP
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to assess dosimetric indices of RapidPlan model-based plans for different energies (6, 8, 10, and 15 MV; 6- and 10-MV flattening filter-free), multileaf collimator (MLC) types (Millennium 120, High Definition 120, dual-layer MLC), and disease sites (head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer) and compare these parameters with those of clinical plans.

methodsRapidPlan models in the Eclipse version 15.6 were used with the data of 28, 42, and 20 patients with head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer, respectively. RapidPlan models of head and neck, pancreatic, and rectal cancer were created for TrueBeam STx (High Definition 120) with 6 MV, TrueBeam STx with 10-MV flattening filter-free, and Clinac iX (Millennium 120) with 15 MV, respectively. The models were used to create volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for a 10-patient test dataset using all energy and MLC types at all disease sites. The Holm test was used to compare multiple dosimetric indices in different treatment machines and energy types.

resultsThe dosimetric indices for planning target volume and organs at risk in RapidPlan model-based plans were comparable to those in the clinical plan. Furthermore, no dose difference was observed among the RapidPlan models. The variability among RapidPlan models was consistent regardless of the treatment machines, MLC types, and energy.

conclusionsDosimetric indices of RapidPlan model-based plans appear to be comparable to the ones based on clinical plans regardless of energies, MLC types, and disease sites. The results suggest that the RapidPlan model can generate treatment plans independent of the type of treatment machine.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRectal NeoplasmsHumansKnowledge BasesRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisteddifferent treatment machinedisease siteenergyknowledge-based planningmultileaf collimator type

Identifiers

PMID34151503
PMCPMC8292706
OpenAlexW3176850835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.