ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Robust optimization of VMAT for prostate cancer accounting for geometric uncertainty.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic comparison of manual, knowledge-based, and feasibility DVH approaches for prostate VMAT: stability and robustness.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Robust Optimization for Prostate Radiation Therapy: Assessment of Delivered Dose by Incorporating Intrafraction Prostate Position Deviations.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Impact of technological advances in treatment planning, image guidance, and treatment delivery on target margin design for prostate cancer radiotherapy: an updated review.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- A robust treatment planning approach for chest motion in postmastectomy chest wall intensity modulated radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Robust optimization of VMAT for prostate cancer accounting for geometric uncertainty.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to propose optimal robust planning by comparing the robustness with setup error with the robustness of a conventional planning target volume (PTV)-based plan and to compare the robust plan to the PTV-based plan for the target and organ at risk (OAR). Data from 13 patients with intermediate-to-high-risk localized prostate cancer who did not have T3b disease were analyzed. The dose distribution under multiple setup error scenarios was assessed using a conventional PTV-based plan. The clinical target volume (CTV) and OAR dose in moving coordinates were used for the dose constraint with the robust plan. The hybrid robust plan added the dose constraint of the PTV-rectum to the static coordinate system. When the isocenter was shifted by 10 mm in the superior-inferior direction and 8 mm in the right-left and anterior directions, the doses to the CTV, bladder, and rectum of the PTV-based plan, robust plan, and hybrid robust plan were compared. For the CTV D
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.