Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35045211›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Dosimetric advantages of daily adaptive strategy in IMPT for high-risk prostate cancer.

Hiroshi Tamura, Keiji Kobashi, Kentaro Nishioka, Takaaki Yoshimura, Takayuki Hashimoto, Shinichi Shimizu, Yoichi M Ito, Yoshikazu Maeda, Makoto Sasaki, Kazutaka Yamamoto and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Hiroshi TamuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Keiji KobashiDepartment of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Kentaro NishiokaDepartment of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Takaaki YoshimuraDepartment of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Takayuki HashimotoDepartment of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Shinichi ShimizuDepartment of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Yoichi M ItoData Science Center, Promotion Unit, Institute of Health Science Innovation for Medical Care, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Yoshikazu MaedaProton Therapy Center, Fukui Prefectural Hospital, Fukui, Japan.
Makoto SasakiProton Therapy Center, Fukui Prefectural Hospital, Fukui, Japan.
Kazutaka YamamotoProton Therapy Center, Fukui Prefectural Hospital, Fukui, Japan.
Hiroyasu TamamuraProton Therapy Center, Fukui Prefectural Hospital, Fukui, Japan.
Hidefumi AoyamaDepartment of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Hiroki ShiratoGlobal Center for Biomedical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Fukui Prefectural Hospital · JPHokkaido University · JPSapporo Medical University · JPHokkaido University of Science · JPSapporo Medical University Hospital · JPSapporo University · JP

Funding

AMED JP21he1602004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the dosimetric advantages of daily adaptive radiotherapy (DART) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for high-risk prostate cancer by comparing estimated doses of the conventional non-adaptive radiotherapy (NART) that irradiates according to an original treatment plan through the entire treatment and the DART that uses an adaptive treatment plan generated by using daily CT images acquired before each treatment.

methodsTwenty-three patients with prostate cancer were included. A treatment plan with 63 Gy (relative biological effectiveness (RBE)) in 21 fractions was generated using treatment planning computed tomography (CT) images assuming that all patients had high-risk prostate cancer for which the clinical target volume (CTV) needs to include prostate and the seminal vesicle (SV) in our treatment protocol. Twenty-one adaptive treatment plans for each patient (total 483 data sets) were generated using daily CT images, and dose distributions were calculated. Using a 3 mm set-up uncertainty in the robust optimization, the doses to the CTV, prostate, SV, rectum, and bladder were compared.

resultsEstimated accumulated doses of NART and DART in the 23 patients were 60.81 ± 3.47 Gy (RBE) and 63.24 ± 1.04 Gy (RBE) for CTV D99 (p < 0.01), 62.99 ± 1.28 Gy (RBE) and 63.43 ± 1.33 Gy (RBE) for the prostate D99 (p = 0.2529), and 59.07 ± 5.19 Gy (RBE) and 63.17 ± 1.04 Gy (RBE) for SV D99 (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between NART and DART in the estimated accumulated dose for the rectum and bladder.

conclusionCompared with the NART, DART was shown to be a useful approach that can maintain the dose coverage to the target without increasing the dose to the organs at risk (OAR) using the 3 mm set-up uncertainty in the robust optimization in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsProton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansMaleOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedadaptive therapyintensity-modulated proton therapyprostate cancerrobust optimization

Identifiers

PMID35045211
PMCPMC8992948
OpenAlexW4206234042

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.