ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Alert system for monitoring changes in patient anatomy during radiation therapy of head and neck cancer.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing quality assurance CT schedules during adaptive proton therapy for enhanced patient care.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Cone-Beam CT Images as an Indicator of QACT During Adaptive Proton Therapy of Extremity Sarcomas.International journal of particle therapy · 2024Article
- Alert system for monitoring changes in patient anatomy during radiation therapy of head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to validate a previously developed algorithm for alerting clinicians when to consider re-CT simulation due to changes in the patient's anatomy during radiation therapy of head and neck cancer. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data were collected prospectively for 77 patients. Each CBCT was mathematically compared to a reference CBCT using the gamma index. We defined the match quality parameter (MQP) as an indicator of CBCT image similarity, where a negative MQP value indicates a poorer CBCT match than the match between the first two CBCT acquired during treatment. If three consecutive MQP values were below a chosen threshold, an "alert" is triggered to indicate action required, for example, possible re-CT simulation. The timing of image review requests made by the radiation therapists and any re-CT/re-plan decisions were documented for each patient's treatment course. The MQP for each patient (including any re-plans) was calculated in a manner that was blinded from the clinical process. The MQP as a function of fraction number was compared to actual clinical decisions in the treatment progress to evaluate alert system performance. There was a total of 93 plans (including re-plans) with 34 positives (action required) and 59 negatives (no action required). The sensitivity of the alert system was 0.76 and the false positive rate was 0.37. Only 1 case out of the 34 positive cases would have been missed by both the alert system and our clinical process. Despite the false negatives and false positives, analysis of the timing of alert triggers showed that the alert system could have resulted in seven fewer clinical misses. The alert system has the potential to be a valuable tool to complement human judgment and to provide a quality assurance safeguard to help improve the delivery of radiation treatment of head and neck cancer.
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.