Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36910024›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2023

Implementing cone-beam computed tomography-guided online adaptive radiotherapy in cervical cancer.

Charlotte E Shelley, Matthew A Bolt, Rachel Hollingdale, Susan J Chadwick, Andrew P Barnard, Miriam Rashid, Selina C Reinlo, Nawda Fazel, Charlotte R Thorpe, Alexandra J Stewart and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. An in-house timer for ART-specific extra time in gynecologic pelvic online adaptive radiation therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Charlotte E ShelleyDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Matthew A BoltDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Rachel HollingdaleDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Susan J ChadwickDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Andrew P BarnardDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Miriam RashidDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Selina C ReinloDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Nawda FazelDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Charlotte R ThorpeDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Alexandra J StewartDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Chris P SouthDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.
Elizabeth J AdamsDepartment of Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) has shown promising outcomes. This study investigated the feasibility of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided online ART (oART) for the treatment of LACC. Material and methods: The quality of the automated radiotherapy treatment plans and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven contour delineation for LACC on a novel CBCT-guided oART system were assessed. Dosimetric analysis of 200 simulated oART sessions were compared with standard treatment. Feasibility of oART was assessed from the delivery of 132 oART fractions for the first five clinical LACC patients. The simulated and live oART sessions compared a fixed planning target volume (PTV) margin of 1.5 cm around the uterus-cervix clinical target volume (CTV) with an internal target volume-based approach. Workflow timing measurements were recorded. Results: The automatically-generated 12-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans were comparable to manually generated plans. The AI-driven organ-at-risk (OAR) contouring was acceptable requiring, on average, 12.3 min to edit, with the bowel performing least well and rated as unacceptable in 16 % of cases. The treated patients demonstrated a mean PTV D98% (+/-SD) of 96.7 (+/- 0.2)% for the adapted plans and 94.9 (+/- 3.7)% for the non-adapted scheduled plans (p<10 Conclusion: CBCT-guided oART was shown to be feasible with dosimetric benefits for patients with LACC. Further work to analyse potential reductions in PTV margins is ongoing.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAutomated treatment planningCervical cancerCone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)External beam radiotherapyImage-guided radiotherapy (IGRT)Online adaptive radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID36910024
PMCPMC9999162

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.