Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34289868›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021

Dosimetric comparison of MR-linac-based IMRT and conventional VMAT treatment plans for prostate cancer.

Vanessa Da Silva Mendes, Lukas Nierer, Minglun Li, Stefanie Corradini, Michael Reiner, Florian Kamp, Maximilian Niyazi, Christopher Kurz, Guillaume Landry, Claus Belka

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Assessment of intrafractional prostate motion and its dosimetric impact in MRI-guided online adaptive radiotherapy with gating.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Vanessa Da Silva MendesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Vanessa.Mendes@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6706-8590
Lukas NiererDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Minglun LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Stefanie CorradiniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Michael ReinerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Florian KampDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Maximilian NiyaziDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Christopher KurzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Guillaume LandryDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Claus BelkaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DE

Funding

ViewRay ViewRay
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, planned for low-field strength magnetic resonance (MR) guided linear accelerator (linac) delivery (labelled IMRT MRL plans), and clinical conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Both plans used the original planning target volume (PTV) margins. Additionally, the potential dosimetric benefits of MR-guidance were estimated, by creating IMRT MRL plans using smaller PTV margins. MATERIALS AND

methods20 PCa patients previously treated with conventional VMAT were considered. For each patient, two different IMRT MRL plans using the low-field MR-linac treatment planning system were created: one with original (orig.) PTV margins and the other with reduced (red.) PTV margins. Dose indices related to target coverage, as well as dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for the target and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. Additionally, the estimated treatment delivery times and the number of monitor units (MU) of each plan were evaluated.

resultsThe dose distribution in the high dose region and the target volume DVH parameters (D

conclusionsA comparable plan quality between VMAT and IMRT MRL plans was achieved, when applying the same PTV margin. However, online MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy allows for a reduction of PTV margins. With a red. PTV margin, better sparing of the surrounding tissues can be achieved, while maintaining adequate target coverage. Nonetheless, longer treatment delivery times, characteristic for the IMRT technique, have to be expected.

Indexed as

HumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleOrgans at RiskParticle AcceleratorsPrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesIGRTIMRTLow-field MR-linacMR-guidanceMRIdian linacProstateVMAT

Identifiers

PMID34289868
PMCPMC8296626
OpenAlexW3186066863

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.