ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
Prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy: quantifying intra-fraction motion and calculating margins using the new BIR geometric uncertainties in daily online IGRT recommendations.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A retrospective comparative evaluation of rectal preparation strategies for patients undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer: Improving treatment delivery efficiency and accuracy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Impact of technological advances in treatment planning, image guidance, and treatment delivery on target margin design for prostate cancer radiotherapy: an updated review.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Treatment Optimization in Linac-Based SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Arc versus Dual-Arc Plan Comparison.Cancers · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo measure the magnitude of intra-fraction prostate motion (IFPM) during stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered without intra-fraction tracking.To assess if current margins adequately cover IFPM.To derive margins using new guidelines.
methodsIFPM was determined in 20 patients receiving 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions using 97 pairs of pre- and post-treatment cone beam CT (CBCT) scans. Correlation of time between CBCT acquisitions and motion was determined. The magnitude of IFPM was compared to current margins (6 mm isotropic, 3 mm posterior). Margins were calculated using IFPM alone and updated guidelines.
resultsThe averaged 3D root mean square IFPM was 2.5 mm (4.2 mm). Independent prostate motion was predominantly posterior (70%) and inferior (63%). There was weak correlation between posterior (ρ = 0.38) and inferior (ρ = 0.36) IFPM and time. IFPM greater than current margins occurred in 8 of 97 fractions, six in the posterior direction. Margins were ≤3.5 mm using IFPM alone and ≤3.3 mm Left 3.5 mm Right, 7.0 mm inferior, 3.7 mm superior, 4.4 mm anterior and 3.3 mm posterior using new guidelines, compensating for motion in 92% of fractions.
conclusionsOur current SBRT margins account for 92% of IFPM, predominantly posterior and inferior. Although updated guidelines suggest an increase in margins inferiorly, any increase must be balanced against the possibility of increased toxicity, particularly if biochemical control and side-effects are favourable with current practice. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The difference between current clinical margins and those determined using updated guidance is demonstrated. The implications must be considered against clinical outcomes.
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.