ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022
Clinical rationale for
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical implementation and performance evaluation of a motorized MR-compatible OCTAVIUS 4D system for SBRT patient-specific QA on a 1.5 T MR-LINAC.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Real-Time Dose-Guided Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Review
- Characterization of the on-board megavoltage imager in a magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy machine for beam output checks.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Experimental validation of multi-fraction online adaptations in magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: In magnetic resonance guided online adaptive radiotherapy, the patient model used for plan adaptation and dose calculation is created online under stringent time constraints. This study investigated the ability of Materials and methods: Portal images acquired during treatment were used to reconstruct the delivered dose corresponding to online adapted plans of 42 prostate and 20 rectal cancer patients. The reconstructed dose distributions were compared with the dose distributions calculated online by the treatment planning system by γ-analysis and by the difference in median dose to the high-dose volume. Results: Out of 245 prostate and 145 rectal cancer adapted plans, deviations were detected in 5 prostate and in 17 rectal adapted plans corresponding to 3 prostate and 6 rectal patients, respectively. For all but one of the alerts, deviations were explained due to discrepancies observed between the patient model used for plan adaptation and online magnetic resonance images. A single workflow incident in which the supporting arm of the anterior receive coil was accidentally moved in the treatment field was also detected. Conclusion: There is need for independent end-to-end checks in magnetic resonance guided online adaptive workflows including the verification of the online patient model.
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.