Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36092772›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022

Benchmarking daily adaptation using fully automated radiotherapy treatment plan optimization for rectal cancer.

Thyrza Z Jagt, Tomas M Janssen, Anja Betgen, Lisa Wiersema, Rick Verhage, Sanne Garritsen, Tineke Vijlbrief-Bosman, Peter de Ruiter, Peter Remeijer, Corrie A M Marijnen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Thyrza Z JagtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tomas M JanssenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anja BetgenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lisa WiersemaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rick VerhageDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sanne GarritsenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tineke Vijlbrief-BosmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter de RuiterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter RemeijerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Corrie A M MarijnenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Femke P PetersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan-Jakob SonkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/purpose: In daily plan adaptation the radiotherapy treatment plan is adjusted just prior to delivery. A simple approach is taking the planning objectives of the reference plan and directly applying these in re-optimization. Here we present a tested method to verify whether daily adaptation without tweaking of the objectives can maintain the plan quality throughout treatment. Materials/methods: For fifteen rectal cancer patients, automated treatment planning was used to generate plans mimicking manual reference plans on the planning scans. For 74 fraction scans (4-5 per patient) an automated plan and a daily adapted plan were generated, where the latter re-optimizes the reference plan objectives without any tweaking. To evaluate the robustness of the daily adaptation, the adapted plans were compared to the autoplanning plans. Results: Median differences between the autoplanning plans on the planning scans and the reference plans were between -1 and 0.2 Gy. The largest interquartile range (1 Gy) was seen for the Lumbar Skin D2%. For the daily scans the PTV D2% and D98% differences between autoplanning and adapted plans were within Conclusion: Automated treatment planning can be used to benchmark daily adaptation techniques. The investigated adaptation workflow can robustly perform high quality adaptations without daily adjusting of the patient-specific planning objectives for rectal cancer radiotherapy.

Indexed as

Automated treatment planningMRI guided radiotherapyOnline plan adaptation

Identifiers

PMID36092772
PMCPMC9450152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.