ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2021
Dosimetric study of Hounsfield number correction effect in areas influenced by contrast product in lungs case.
Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was dosimetric effect quantification of exclusive computed tomography (CT) use with an intravenous (IV) contrast agent (CA ), on dose distribution of 3D-CRT treatment plans for lung cancer. Furthermore, dosimetric advantage investigation of manually contrast-enhanced region overriding, especially the heart. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen patients with lung cancer were considered. For each patient two planning CT sets were initially taken with and without CA. Treatment planning were optimized based on CT scans without CA. All plans were copied and recomputed on scans with CA. In addition, scans with IV contrast were copied and density correction was performed for heart contrast enhanced. Same plans were copied and replaced to undo dose calculation errors that may be caused by CA. Eventually, dosimetric evaluations based on dose volume histograms (DVHs) of planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at-risk were studied and analyzed using the Wilcoxon's signed rank test.
resultsThere is no statistically significant difference in dose calculation for the PTV maximum, mean, minimum doses, spinal cord maximum doses and lung volumes that received 20 and 30 Gy, between planes calculated with and without contrast scans (p > 0.05) and also for contrast scan, with manual regions overriding.
conclusionsDose difference caused by the contrast agent is negligible and not significant. Therefore, there is no justification to perform two scans, and using an IV contrast enhanced scan for dose calculation is sufficient.
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.