Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34196725›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2021

Improving interinstitutional and intertechnology consistency of pulmonary SBRT by dose prescription to the mean internal target volume dose.

L Wilke, C Moustakis, O Blanck, D Albers, C Albrecht, Y Avcu, R Boucenna, K Buchauer, T Etzelstorfer, C Henkenberens and 19 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

29 authors.

L WilkeKlinik für Radio-Onkologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. lotte.wilke@usz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0702-2355
C MoustakisKlinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany.
O BlanckKlinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein - Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
D AlbersKlinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universtitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
C AlbrechtCyberKnife Centrum Süd, Schwarzwald-Baar Klinikum Villingen-Schwenningen, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
Y AvcuKlinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsspital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
R BoucennaInstitut de radio-oncologie, Hislanden Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
K BuchauerKlinik für Radio-Onkologie, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
T EtzelstorferRadio-Onkologie, Ordensklinikum Linz Barmherzige Schwestern, Linz, Austria.
C HenkenberensKlinik für Strahlentherapie und Spezielle Onkologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
D JellerRadio-Onkologie, Kantonsspital Luzern, Luzern, Switzerland.
K JurianzMVZ Gamma-Knife Zentrum Krefeld, Krefeld, Germany.
C KornhuberKlinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Halle, Halle, Germany.
M KretschmerRadiologische Allianz Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
S LotzeKlinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
K MeierStrahlentherapie, Klinikum Wolfsburg, Wolfsburg, Germany.
P PemlerKlinik für Radioonkologie, Stadtspital Triemli, Zürich, Switzerland.
A RieglerInstitut für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Landesklinikum Wiener Neustadt, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
A RöserStrahlentherapie und Radio-Onkologie, Helios Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
D SchmidhalterDivision of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland.
K H SpruijtInstitut de radio-oncologie, Clinique des Grangettes, Geneva, Switzerland.
G SurberInstitut für Radiochirurgie und Präzisionsbestrahlung, CyberKnife Centrum Mitteldeutschland, Erfurt, Germany.
V ValletService de radio-oncologie, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
R WiehleKlinik für Strahlenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
J WillnerKlinik für Strahlentherapie, Klinikum Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
P WinklerUniversitätsklinik für Strahlentherapie-Radioonkologie, LKH-Univ. Klinikum Graz, Graz, Austria.
A WittigDepartent of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
M GuckenbergerKlinik für Radio-Onkologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
S Tanadini-LangKlinik für Radio-Onkologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDose, fractionation, normalization and the dose profile inside the target volume vary substantially in pulmonary stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) between different institutions and SBRT technologies. Published planning studies have shown large variations of the mean dose in planning target volume (PTV) and gross tumor volume (GTV) or internal target volume (ITV) when dose prescription is performed to the PTV covering isodose. This planning study investigated whether dose prescription to the mean dose of the ITV improves consistency in pulmonary SBRT dose distributions. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a multi-institutional planning study by the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) working group Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Radiotherapy. CT images and structures of ITV, PTV and all relevant organs at risk (OAR) for two patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were distributed to all participating institutions. Each institute created a treatment plan with the technique commonly used in the institute for lung SBRT. The specified dose fractionation was 3 × 21.5 Gy normalized to the mean ITV dose. Additional dose objectives for target volumes and OAR were provided.

resultsIn all, 52 plans from 25 institutions were included in this analysis: 8 robotic radiosurgery (RRS), 34 intensity-modulated (MOD), and 10 3D-conformal (3D) radiation therapy plans. The distribution of the mean dose in the PTV did not differ significantly between the two patients (median 56.9 Gy vs 56.6 Gy). There was only a small difference between the techniques, with RRS having the lowest mean PTV dose with a median of 55.9 Gy followed by MOD plans with 56.7 Gy and 3D plans with 57.4 Gy having the highest. For the different organs at risk no significant difference between the techniques could be found.

conclusionsThis planning study pointed out that multiparameter dose prescription including normalization on the mean ITV dose in combination with detailed objectives for the PTV and ITV achieve consistent dose distributions for peripheral lung tumors in combination with an ITV concept between different delivery techniques and across institutions.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansLungPrescriptionsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedDose prescriptionLung cancerOrgans at riskPlanning benchmark studyQuality assuranceStereotactic radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID34196725
PMCPMC8397670

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.