ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Impact of respiratory motion on lung dose during total marrow irradiation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adaptive approach for tracking movements of biological targets: application to robot-based intervention for prostate cancer.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
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
We evaluated the impact of respiratory motion on the lung dose during linac-based intensity-modulated total marrow irradiation (IMTMI) using two different approaches: (1) measurement of doses within the lungs of an anthropomorphic phantom using thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) and (2) treatment delivery measurements using ArcCHECK where gamma passing rates (GPRs) and the mean lung doses were calculated and compared with and without motion. In the first approach, respiratory motions were simulated using a programmable motion platform by using typical published peak-to-peak motion amplitudes of 5, 8, and 12 mm in the craniocaudal (CC) direction, denoted here as M1, M2, and M3, respectively, with 2 mm in both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) directions. TLDs were placed in five selected locations in the lungs of a RANDO phantom. Average TLD measurements obtained with motion were normalized to those obtained with static phantom delivery. The mean dose ratios were 1.01 (0.98-1.03), 1.04 (1.01-1.09), and 1.08 (1.04-1.12) for respiratory motions M1, M2, and M3, respectively. To determine the impact of directional respiratory motion, we repeated the experiment with 5-, 8-, and 12-mm motion in the CC direction only. The differences in average TLD doses were less than 1% when compared with the M1, M2, and M3 motions indicating a minimal impact from CC motion on lung dose during IMTMI. In the second experimental approach, we evaluated extreme respiratory motion 15 mm excursion in only the CC direction. We placed an ArcCHECK device on a commercial motion platform and delivered the clinical IMTMI plans of five patients. We compared, with and without motion, the dose volume histograms (DVHs) and mean lung dose calculated with the ArcCHECK-3DVH tool as well as GPR with 3%, 5%, and 10% dose agreements and a 3-mm constant distance to agreement (DTA). GPR differed by 11.1 ± 2.1%, 3.8 ± 1.5%, and 0.1 ± 0.2% with dose agreement criteria of 3%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. This indicates that respiratory motion impacts dose distribution in small and isolated parts of the lungs. More importantly, the impact of respiratory motion on the mean lung dose, a critical indicator for toxicity in IMTMI, was not statistically significant (
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.