Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36060413›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2022

Analysis of the Rate of Re-planning in Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy.

Yue-Houng Hu, Riley H Harper, Noelle C Deiter, Jaden D Evans, Anita Mahajan, Jon J Kruse, Daniel W Mundy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of particle therapy, 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

7 authors.

Yue-Houng HuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Riley H HarperCollege of Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Noelle C DeiterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jaden D EvansDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Anita MahajanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jon J KruseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Daniel W MundyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Finite proton range affords improved dose conformality of radiation therapy when patient regions-of-interest geometries are well characterized. Substantial changes in patient anatomy necessitate re-planning (RP) to maintain effective, safe treatment. Regularly planned verification scanning (VS) is performed to ensure consistent treatment quality. Substantial resources, however, are required to conduct an effective proton plan verification program, which includes but is not limited to, additional computed tomography (CT) scanner time and dedicated personnel: radiation therapists, medical physicists, physicians, and medical dosimetrists. Materials and Methods: Verification scans (VSs) and re-plans (RPs) of 711 patients treated with proton therapy between June 2015 and June 2018 were studied. All treatment RP was performed with the intent to maintain original plan integrity and coverage. The treatments were classified by anatomic site: brain, craniospinal, bone, spine, head and neck (H&N), lung or chest, breast, prostate, rectum, anus, pelvis, esophagus, liver, abdomen, and extremity. Within each group, the dates of initial simulation scan, number of VSs, number of fractions completed at the time of VS, and the frequency of RP were collected. Data were analyzed in terms of rate of RP and individual likelihood of RP. Results: A total of 2196 VSs and 201 RPs were performed across all treatment sites. H&N and lung or chest disease sites represented the largest proportion of plan modifications in terms of rate of re-plan (RoR: 54% and 58%, respectively) and individual likelihood of RP on a per patient basis (likelihood of RP [RP%]: 46% and 39%, respectively). These sites required RP beyond 4 weeks of treatment, suggesting continued benefit for frequent, periodic VS. Disease sites in the lower pelvis demonstrated a low yield for RP per VS (0.01-0.02), suggesting that decreasing VS frequency, particularly late in treatment, may be reasonable. Conclusions: A large degree of variation in RoR and individual RP% was observed between anatomic treatment sites. The present retrospective analysis provides data to help develop anatomic site-based VS protocols.

Indexed as

IMPTre-planningverification scanning

Identifiers

PMID36060413
PMCPMC9415746

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.