ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
A two-step treatment planning strategy incorporating knowledge-based planning for head-and-neck radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The improved features to dose correlation for dose volumes prediction in multidisease radiation therapy plans.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical feasibility of atlas-based auto-segmentation for organ-at-risk contouring in head-and-neck radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Knowledge-Based RapidPlan Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Model in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Quality and mechanical efficiency of automated knowledge-based planning for volumetric-modulated arc therapy in head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- A two-step treatment planning strategy incorporating knowledge-based planning for head-and-neck radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere has been much research interest in automated head-and-neck (HN) planning with the goal of reducing planning time and inter-planner variability while improving plan quality. However, clinical uses are still limited and institution-dependent due to the plan complexity. This work aims to investigate whether the use of a novel semi-automated two-step optimization method (TSP) can improve the quality and efficiency of planning while providing a simple framework that other institutions can follow. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty patients (two and three prescription isodose levels) were retrospectively studied. Plans were generated by TSP which incorporates a knowledge-based planning solution. Comparisons were performed for plan conformity and selected dose-volume indices between clinical plan (CP) and TSP. Blind reviews were carried out by 15 clinicians to determine preference between the CP and TSP, as well as clinical suitability.
resultsFor majority of patients studied, TSP had similar or slightly better conformity for the high-dose PTV, and better conformity for the low-dose PTV and 45 Gy isodose lines compared to CP. The only statistically significant difference observed for the serial organs was a reduction of the spinal cord maximum dose with TSP. Except for left parotid gland (D
conclusionOur TSP allows plans to be created within 90-min time frame while offering improvements in plan quality and less inter-planner variability as compared to traditional planning techniques.
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.