ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Comparing Efficacy Between Robust and PTV Margin-based Optimizations for Interfractional Anatomical Variations in Prostate Tomotherapy.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Margins of Planning Target Volume and Set-up Errors based on Megavoltage Cone-Beam CT Image Guided Radiotherapy with Helical Tomotherapy: Importance of Automatic Registration Plus Manual Registration.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2026Article
- Impact of four-dimensional computed tomography phase number on target coverage of four-dimensional robustly optimized lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Scenario-free robust optimization algorithm for IMRT and IMPT treatment planning.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimInterfractional anatomical variations cause considerable differences between planned and actual radiotherapy doses. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of robust and planning target volume (PTV) margin-based optimizations for the anatomical variations in helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsTen patients underwent treatment-planning kilovolt computed tomography (kVCT) and daily megavolt computed tomography (MVCT). Two types of nominal plans, with a prescription of 60 Gy/20 fractions, were created using robust and PTV margin-based optimizations on kVCT for each patient. Subsequently, the daily estimated doses were recalculated using nominal plans, and all available MVCTs modified the daily patient-setup errors. Due to the difference in dose calculation accuracy between kVCT and MVCT, three scenarios with dose corrections of 1, 2, and 3% were considered in the recalculation process. The dosimetric metrics, including target coverage with the prescription dose, Paddick's conformity index, homogeneity index, and mean dose to the rectum, were analyzed.
resultsA dosimetric comparison of the nominal plans demonstrated that the robust plans had better dose conformity, lower target coverage, and dose homogeneity than the PTV plans. In the daily estimated doses of any dose-corrected scenario, the target coverage and dose sparing to the rectum in the robust plans were significantly higher than those in the PTV plans, whereas dose conformity and homogeneity were identical to those of the nominal case.
conclusionRobust optimization is recommended as it accounts for anatomical variations during treatment regarding target coverage in helical tomotherapy plans for prostate cancer.
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.