Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35054061›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Dosimetric Effects of Air Cavities for MRI-Guided Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy (MRgART) of Prostate Bed after Radical Prostatectomy.

Jonathan Pham, Minsong Cao, Stephanie M Yoon, Yu Gao, Amar U Kishan, Yingli Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Jonathan PhamPhysics and Biology in Medicine IDP, University of California, 650 Charles E Young Drive S, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Minsong CaoPhysics and Biology in Medicine IDP, University of California, 650 Charles E Young Drive S, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Stephanie M YoonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, 200 Medical Plaza Driveway, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Yu GaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, 200 Medical Plaza Driveway, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Amar U KishanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, 200 Medical Plaza Driveway, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Yingli YangPhysics and Biology in Medicine IDP, University of California, 650 Charles E Young Drive S, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate dosimetric impact of air cavities and their corresponding electron density correction for 0.35 tesla (T) Magnetic Resonance-guided Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy (MRgART) of prostate bed patients.

methodsThree 0.35 T MRgRT plans (anterior-posterior (AP) beam, AP-PA beams, and clinical intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)) were generated on a prostate bed patient's (Patient A) planning computed tomography (CT) with artificial rectal air cavities of various sizes (0-3 cm, 0.5 cm increments). Furthermore, two 0.35 T MRgART plans ('Deformed' and 'Override') were generated on a prostate bed patient's (Patient B) daily magnetic resonance image (MRI) with artificial rectal air cavities of various sizes (0-3 cm, 0.5 cm increments) and on five prostate bed patient's (Patient 1-5) daily MRIs (2 MRIs: Fraction A and B) with real air cavities. For each MRgART plan, daily MRI electron density map was obtained by deformable registration with simulation CT. In the 'Deformed' plan, a clinical IMRT plan is calculated on the daily MRI with electron density map obtained from deformable registration only. In the 'Override' plan, daily MRI and simulation CT air cavities are manually corrected and bulk assigned air and water density on the registered electron density map, respectively. Afterwards, the clinical IMRT plan is calculated.

resultsFor the MRgRT plans, AP and AP-PA plans' rectum/rectal wall max dose increased with increasing air cavity size, where the 3 cm air cavity resulted in a 20%/17% and 13%/13% increase, relative to no air cavity, respectively. Clinical IMRT plan was robust to air cavity size, where dose change remained less than 1%. For the MRgART plans, daily MRI electron density maps, obtained from deformable registration with simulation CT, was unable to accurately produce electron densities reflecting the air cavities. However, for the artificial daily MRI air cavities, dosimetric change between 'Deformed' and 'Override' plan was small (<4%). Similarly, for the real daily MRI air cavities, clinical constraint changes between 'Deformed' and 'Override' plan was negligible and did not lead to change in clinical decision for adaptive planning except for two fractions. In these fractions, the 'Override' plan indicated that the bladder max dose and rectum V35.7 exceeded the constraint, while the 'Deformed' plan showed acceptable dose, although the absolute difference was only 0.3 Gy and 0.03 cc, respectively.

conclusionClinical 0.35 T IMRT prostate bed plans are dosimetrically robust to air cavities. MRgART air cavity electron density correction shows clinically insignificant change and is not warranted on low-field systems.

Indexed as

adaptive therapyair cavitydose calculationlow-fieldMR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT)prostate bedprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID35054061
PMCPMC8780446

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.