ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2021
Development and clinical validation of Knowledge-based planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy of cervical cancer including pelvic and para aortic fields.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility study of automatic radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical cancer using a large language model.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Quality and mechanical efficiency of automated knowledge-based planning for volumetric-modulated arc therapy in head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Transitioning India to advanced image based adaptive brachytherapy: a national impact analysis of upgrading National Cancer Grid cervix cancer guidelines.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2023Article
- Can knowledge based treatment planning of VMAT for post-mastectomy locoregional radiotherapy involving internal mammary chain and supraclavicular fossa improve performance efficiency?Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Using Artificial Intelligence for Optimization of the Processes and Resource Utilization in Radiotherapy.JCO global oncology · 2022Review
- Contribution of Tata Memorial Centre, India, to cervical cancer care: Journey of two decades.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeKnowledge-based planning (KBP) is based on a model to estimate dose-volume histograms, configured using a library of historical treatment plans to efficiently create high quality plans. The aim was to report configuration and validation of KBP for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy of cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsA KBP model was configured from the institutional database (n = 125), including lymph node positive (n = 60) and negative (n = 65) patients. KBP Predicted plans were compared with Clinical Plans (CP) and Re-plans (Predicted plan as a base-plan) to validate the model. Model quality was quantified using coefficient of determination R2, mean square error (MSE), standard two-tailed paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.
resultsEstimation capability of the model was good for the bowel bag (MSE = 0.001, R2 = 0.84), modest for the bladder (MSE = 0.008) and poor for the rectum (MSE = 0.02 R2 = 0.78). KBP resulted in comparable target coverage, superior organ sparing as compared to CP. Re-plans outperformed CP for the bladder, V30 (66 ± 11% vs 74 ± 11%, p < .001), V40 (48 ± 14% vs 52 ± 14%, p < .001), however sparing was modest for the bowel bag V30 (413 ± 191cm
conclusionKBP yielded comparable and for some organs superior performance compared to CP resulting in conformal and homogeneous target coverage. Improved organ sparing was observed when individual patient geometry was considered.
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.