ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2022
Impact of transperineal ultrasound on perineal skin dose in prostate radiation therapy.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What Ranges of Probe Pressure Are Applied During Ultrasound Examinations? A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Genomic and Phenotypic Biomarkers for Precision Medicine Guidance in Advanced Prostate Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigated the relationship between anatomical compression introduced via ultrasound probe pressure and maximum perineum dose in prostate radiotherapy patients using the Clarity transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) system. Methods: 115 patient ultrasound and computed tomography scans were retrospectively analysed. The probe to prostate apex distance (PPA), probe to inferior corpus spongiosum distance (PICS) and maximum perineum dose were calculated. Compression was represented by the PICS and the calculated corpus to prostate ratio (CPR). Demographics included treatment technique, image quality, body mass index (BMI) and age. Multiple linear regression analysis assessed the relationship between compression measures and perineum dose. Results: The maximum dose to perineum ranged from 1.81 to 45.56 Gy, with a median of 5.87 Gy (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.17). The PICS distance and CPR recorded was 1.67 cm (IQR 0.63) and 0.51 (range 0.29-0.85) respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated both PICS and CPR were significant predictors of maximum dose to the perineum (p < 0.001). Patient-specific factors, including age, BMI, treatment technique and ultrasound image quality, were not factors that significantly impacted the maximum perineum dose. Conclusion: There was a statistically significant association between increased anatomical compression and perineal dose measurements. A PICS of 1.2 cm or greater is recommended, with compression reduced as much as possible without losing anatomical US definition. Future investigations would be beneficial to evaluate the optimal balance between ultrasound image quality and transducer compression considering the perineum dose.
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.