Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34687138›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021

The benefit of MR-only radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers: A planning study.

David Bird, Michael G Nix, Hazel McCallum, Mark Teo, Alexandra Gilbert, Nathalie Casanova, Rachel Cooper, David L Buckley, David Sebag-Montefiore, Richard Speight and 2 more

Abstract 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

12 authors.

David BirdLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Michael G NixLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Hazel McCallumNorthern Centre for Cancer Care, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Mark TeoLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Alexandra GilbertLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Nathalie CasanovaLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Rachel CooperLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
David L BuckleyBiomedical Imaging, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
David Sebag-MontefioreLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Richard SpeightLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Bashar Al-QaisiehLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Ann M HenryLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLimited evidence exists showing the benefit of magnetic resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers. This study aims to assess the impact of MR-only planning on target volumes (TVs) and treatment plan doses to organs at risks (OARs) for anal and rectal cancers versus a computed tomography (CT)-only pathway. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty-six patients (29 rectum and 17 anus) undergoing preoperative or radical external beam radiotherapy received CT and T2 MR simulation. TV and OARs were delineated on CT and MR, and volumetric arc therapy treatment plans were optimized independently (53.2 Gy/28 fractions for anus, 45 Gy/25 fractions for rectum). Further treatment plans assessed gross tumor volume (GTV) dose escalation. Differences in TV volumes and OAR doses, in terms of Vx Gy (organ volume (%) receiving x dose (Gy)), were assessed.

resultsMR GTV and primary planning TV (PTV) volumes systematically reduced by 13 cc and 98 cc (anus) and 44 cc and 109 cc (rectum) respectively compared to CT volumes. Statistically significant OAR dose reductions versus CT were found for bladder and uterus (rectum) and bladder, penile bulb, and genitalia (anus). With GTV boosting, statistically significant dose reductions were found for sigmoid, small bowel, vagina, and penile bulb (rectum) and vagina (anus).

conclusionOur findings provide evidence that the introduction of MR (whether through MR-only or CT-MR pathways) to radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers has the potential to improve treatments. MR-related OAR dose reductions may translate into less treatment-related toxicity for patients or greater ability to dose escalate.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRectal NeoplasmsAnal CanalFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRectumMRI-only planningMR-only

Identifiers

PMID34687138
PMCPMC8598134

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.