ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2023
A multi-center survey on adaptive radiation therapy for head and neck cancer in Malaysia.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Oral Cancer: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Optimal timing of organs-at-risk-sparing adaptive radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer under re-planning resource constraints.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Optimal Timing of Organs-at-Risk-Sparing Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Head- and-Neck Cancer under Re-planning Resource Constraints.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The survey is to assess the current state of adaptive radiation therapy (ART) for head and neck (H&N) cases among radiotherapy centers in Malaysia and to identify any implementation limitations. An online questionnaire was sent to all radiotherapy centers in Malaysia. The 24-question questionnaire consists of general information about the center, ART practices, and limitations faced in implementing ART. 28 out of 36 radiotherapy centers responded, resulting in an overall response rate of 78%. About 52% of the responding centers rescanned and replanned less than 5% of their H&N patients. The majority (88.9%) of the respondents reported the use Cone Beam Computed Tomography alone or in combination with other modalities to trigger the ART process. The main reasons cited for adopting ART were weight loss, changes in the immobilization fitting, and anatomical variation. The adaptation process typically occurred during week 3 or week 4 of treatment. More than half of the respondents require three days or more from re-simulation to starting a new treatment plan. Both target and organ at risk delineation on new planning CT relied heavily on manual delineation by physicians and physicists, respectively. All centers perform patient-specific quality assurance for their new adaptive plans. Two main limitations in implementing ART are "limited financial resources or equipment" and "limitation on technical knowledge". There is a need for a common consensus to standardize the practice of ART and address these limitations to improve the implementation of ART in Malaysia.
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.