Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34302421›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021

Alert system for monitoring changes in patient anatomy during radiation therapy of head and neck cancer.

Bryan Schaly, Jeff Kempe, Varagur Venkatesan, Sylvia Mitchell, Jeff Chen

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bryan SchalyPhysics & Engineering Department, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON, Canada.
Jeff KempePhysics & Engineering Department, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON, Canada.
Varagur VenkatesanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON, Canada.
Sylvia MitchellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, London Regional Cancer Program, London, ON, Canada.
Jeff ChenDepartments of Oncology and Medical Biophysics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Cancer Care Ontario · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Head and Neck NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedanatomy changeshead and neck cancerimage-guided radiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID34302421
PMCPMC8364268
OpenAlexW3186144593

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.