ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2022
Evaluation of a hybrid automatic planning solution for rectal cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Auto-Segmentation and Auto-Planning in Automated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Replacing manual planning with automatic iterative planning for locally advanced rectal cancer VMAT treatment.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Synthesizing Efficiency Tools in Radiotherapy to Increase Patient Flow: A Comprehensive Literature Review.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScript-based planning and knowledge-based planning are two kinds of automatic planning solutions. Hybrid automatic planning may integrate the advantages of both solutions and provide a more robust automatic planning solution in the clinic. In this study, we evaluated and compared a commercially available hybrid planning solution with manual planning and script-based planning.
methodsIn total, 51 rectal cancer patients in our institution were enrolled in this study. Each patient generated 7 plans: one clinically accepted manual plan ([Formula: see text]), three script-based plans and three hybrid plans generated with the volumetric-modulated arc therapy technique and 3 different clinical goal settings: easy, moderate and hard ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]). Planning goals included planning target volume (PTV) D
resultsCompared to manual planning, hybrid planning with all settings significantly reduced the OAR dose (p < 0.05, paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test) for all dose-volume indices, except D
conclusionsThe hybrid planning solution was manual-planning comparable for rectal cancer. Hybrid planning can provide a better and more robust plan quality than script-based planning.
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.