Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37552151›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2024

Quantifying the Effect of 4-Dimensional Computed Tomography-Based Deformable Dose Accumulation on Representing Radiation Damage for Patients with Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Standard-Fractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

Yulun He, Guillaume Cazoulat, Carol Wu, Stina Svensson, Lusmeralis Almodovar-Abreu, Bastien Rigaud, Emma McCollum, Christine Peterson, Zachary Wooten, Dong Joo Rhee and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yulun HeGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston, Houston, Texas; Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: yulun.he@uth.tmc.edu.
Guillaume CazoulatDepartment of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Carol WuDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Stina SvenssonRaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lusmeralis Almodovar-AbreuDepartment of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Bastien RigaudDepartment of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Emma McCollumDepartment of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Christine PetersonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Zachary WootenDepartment of Statistics, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Dong Joo RheeDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Peter BalterDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Julianne Pollard-LarkinDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Carlos CardenasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Laurence CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Zhongxing LiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Radhe MohanDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Kristy BrockDepartment of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USRaySearch Laboratories (Sweden) · SERice University · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Project 3: Enhanced Sensitivity of Tumors to Proton Beam Therapy: Mechanisms and Biomarkers.P01CA261669 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HONG, THEODORE S · 2021 to 2025
$14.0M
Training Program in Biostatistics for Cancer ResearchT32CA096520 · NCI · RICE UNIVERSITY · PI KIMMEL, MAREK, YUAN, YING · 2003 to 2023
$4.5M
Risk prediction and longitudinal assessment of cardiotoxicity and functional capacity trajectory in NSCLC patientsR01HL157273 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI LIAO, ZHONGXING · 2021 to 2025
$3.8M
UPWARDS Training Program (Underrepresented Minorities Working Towards Research Diversity in Science)R25CA240137 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI KEYOMARSI, KHANDAN, WATOWICH, STEPHANIE S · 2020 to 2024
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA261669NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R25 CA240137NCI NIH HHS T32 CA096520NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL157273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric and clinical effects of 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT)-based longitudinal dose accumulation in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with standard-fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-seven patients were retrospectively selected from a randomized clinical trial. Their original IMRT plan, planning and verification 4DCTs, and ∼4-month posttreatment follow-up CTs were imported into a commercial treatment planning system. Two deformable image registration algorithms were implemented for dose accumulation, and their accuracies were assessed. The planned and accumulated doses computed using average-intensity images or phase images were compared. At the organ level, mean lung dose and normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) for grade ≥2 radiation pneumonitis were compared. At the region level, mean dose in lung subsections and the volumetric overlap between isodose intervals were compared. At the voxel level, the accuracy in estimating the delivered dose was compared by evaluating the fit of a dose versus radiographic image density change (IDC) model. The dose-IDC model fit was also compared for subcohorts based on the magnitude of NTCP difference (|ΔNTCP|) between planned and accumulated doses.

resultsDeformable image registration accuracy was quantified, and the uncertainty was considered for the voxel-level analysis. Compared with planned doses, accumulated doses on average resulted in <1-Gy lung dose increase and <2% NTCP increase (up to 8.2 Gy and 18.8% for a patient, respectively). Volumetric overlap of isodose intervals between the planned and accumulated dose distributions ranged from 0.01 to 0.93. Voxel-level dose-IDC models demonstrated a fit improvement from planned dose to accumulated dose (pseudo-R

conclusionsWith a relatively large cohort, robust image registrations, multilevel metric comparisons, and radiographic image-based evidence, we demonstrated that dose accumulation more accurately represents the delivered dose and can be especially beneficial for patients with greater longitudinal response.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedFour-Dimensional Computed TomographyHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37552151
PMCPMC11379060
OpenAlexW4385661614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.