Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37248504›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2023

Comparison of different dose accumulation strategies to estimate organ doses after stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiotherapy.

Sebastian Regnery, Lukas Leiner, Carolin Buchele, Philipp Hoegen, Elisabetta Sandrini, Thomas Held, Maximilian Deng, Tanja Eichkorn, Carolin Rippke, C Katharina Renkamp and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sebastian RegneryDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lukas LeinerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Carolin BucheleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp HoegenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Elisabetta SandriniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas HeldDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Maximilian DengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tanja EichkornDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Carolin RippkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
C Katharina RenkampDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Laila KönigDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kristin LangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sebastian AdebergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jürgen DebusDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sebastian Klüter *Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Juliane Hörner-Rieber *Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Juliane.Hoerner-Rieber@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
National Center for Tumor Diseases · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEHeidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRe-irradiation is frequently performed in the era of precision oncology, but previous doses to organs-at-risk (OAR) must be assessed to avoid cumulative overdoses. Stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) enables highly precise ablation of tumors close to OAR. However, OAR doses may change considerably during adaptive treatment, which complicates potential re-irradiation. We aimed to compare the baseline plan with different dose accumulation techniques to inform re-irradiation. PATIENTS &

methodsWe analyzed 18 patients who received SMART to lung or liver tumors inside prospective databases. Cumulative doses were calculated inside the planning target volumes (PTV) and OAR for the adapted plans and theoretical non-adapted plans via (1) cumulative dose volume histograms (DVH sum plan) and (2) deformable image registration (DIR)-based dose accumulation to planning images (DIR sum plan). We compared cumulative dose parameters between the baseline plan, DVH sum plan and DIR sum plan using equivalent doses in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2).

resultsIndividual patients presented relevant increases of near-maximum doses inside the proximal bronchial tree, spinal cord, heart and gastrointestinal OAR when comparing adaptive treatment to the baseline plans. The spinal cord near-maximum doses were significantly increased in the liver patients (D2% median: baseline 6.1 Gy, DIR sum 8.1 Gy, DVH sum 8.4 Gy, p = 0.04; D0.1 cm³ median: baseline 6.1 Gy, DIR sum 8.1 Gy, DVH sum 8.5 Gy, p = 0.04). Three OAR overdoses occurred during adaptive treatment (DIR sum: 1, DVH sum: 2), and four more intense OAR overdoses would have occurred during non-adaptive treatment (DIR sum: 4, DVH sum: 3). Adaptive treatment maintained similar PTV coverages to the baseline plans, while non-adaptive treatment yielded significantly worse PTV coverages in the lung (D95% median: baseline 86.4 Gy, DIR sum 82.4 Gy, DVH sum 82.2 Gy, p = 0.006) and liver patients (D95% median: baseline 87.4 Gy, DIR sum 82.1 Gy, DVH sum 81.1 Gy, p = 0.04).

conclusionOAR doses can increase during SMART, so that re-irradiation should be planned based on dose accumulations of the adapted plans instead of the baseline plan. Cumulative dose volume histograms represent a simple and conservative dose accumulation strategy.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyOrgans at RiskPrecision MedicineRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedDeformable image RegistrationDose accumulationImage-guided Radiotherapy (IGRT)Liver CancerMR-guided adaptive radiotherapyPulmonary CancerStereotactic body Radiotherapy (SABR)

Identifiers

PMID37248504
PMCPMC10228097
OpenAlexW4378715367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.