Trial reportRadiation oncology (London, England)2022
A prospective comparison of adaptive and fixed boost plans in radiotherapy for glioblastoma.
Trial report in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Timing of Planning Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Patient Selection for Adaptive Radiation Therapy in Newly Diagnosed High-Grade Glioma.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Pooled it
- Adaptive radiation therapy for glioblastoma: clinical efficacy and recurrence patterns.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging in glioblastoma radiotherapy - beyond treatment adaptation.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of clinical target volume margin reduction in glioblastoma patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Article
- Evolving concepts in margin strategies and adaptive radiotherapy for glioblastoma: A new future is on the horizon.Neuro-oncology · 2024Review
- Impact of Postoperative Changes in Brain Anatomy on Target Volume Delineation for High-Grade Glioma.Cancers · 2023Article
- Simulated Adaptive Radiotherapy for Shrinking Glioblastoma Resection Cavities on a Hybrid MRI-Linear Accelerator.Cancers · 2023Article
- Patient-Specific Computational Framework to Spatiotemporally Forecast Treatment Response and Identify Biologically Informed Radiotherapy Targets in High-Grade Glioma.JCO clinical cancer informaticsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the efficacy of adaptive radiotherapy (ART) for glioblastoma.
methodsSixty-one glioblastoma patients who received ART were prospectively evaluated. The initial clinical target volume (CTVinitial) was represented by T2 hyperintensity on postoperative MRIs (pre-RT MRI [MRIpre])plus 10 mm. The initial planning target volume (PTVinitial) was the CTVinitial plus a 5-mm margin. The PTVinitial received 40 Gy. An MRI and a second planning CT were performed during radiotherapy (MRImid). Two types of boost CTVs (the resection cavity and residual tumor on enhanced T1-weighted MRI plus 10 mm) were created based on the MRIpre and MRImid (CTVboost-pre and -mid). The boost PTV (PTVboost) was the CTVboost plus 5 mm. Two types of boost plans (fixed and adaptive boost plans in the first and second planning CT, respectively) of 20 Gy were created. The PTV based on the post-RT MRI (PTVboost-post) was created, and the dose-volume histograms of the PTVboost-post in the fixed and adaptive boost plans were compared. Additionally, the conformity indices (CIs) of the fixed and adaptive boost plans were compared.
resultsThe median V95 of the PTVboost-post of the fixed and adaptive boost plans (V95pre and V95mid) were 95.6% and 98.3%, respectively (P < 0.01). The median V95pre and V95mid of patients after gross total resection (GTR) were 97.4% and 98.8%, respectively (P = 0.41); in contrast, the median values of patients after non-GTR were 91.9% and 98.2%, respectively (P < 0.01). The median CIs of the fixed and adaptive boost plans in all patients were 1.45 and 1.47, respectively (P = 0.31). The median CIs of the fixed and adaptive boost plans in patients after GTR were 1.61 and 1.48, respectively (P = 0.01); in contrast, those in patients after non-GTR were 1.36 and 1.44, respectively (P = 0.13).
conclusionART for glioblastoma improved the target coverage and dose reduction for the normal brain. By analyzing the results according to the resection rate, we can expect a decrease in normal brain dose in patients with GTR and an increase in coverage in those with partial resection or biopsy.
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.