Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38173837›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Optimal planning target margin for prostate radiotherapy based on interfractional and intrafractional variability assessment during 1.5T MRI-guided radiotherapy.

Jina Kim, Jiwon Sung, Seo Jin Lee, Kang Su Cho, Byung Ha Chung, Dongjoon Yang, Jihun Kim, Jun Won Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. 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
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy in one or two sessions for localized prostate cancer: a review of the evidence and future perspectives.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jina KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jiwon SungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seo Jin LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kang Su ChoDepartment of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Byung Ha ChungDepartment of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dongjoon YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jihun KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jun Won KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: We analyzed daily pre-treatment- (PRE) and real-time motion monitoring- (MM) MRI scans of patients receiving definitive prostate radiotherapy (RT) with 1.5 T MRI guidance to assess interfractional and intrafractional variability of the prostate and suggest optimal planning target volume (PTV) margin. Materials and methods: Rigid registration between PRE-MRI and planning CT images based on the pelvic bone and prostate anatomy were performed. Interfractional setup margin (SM) and interobserver variability (IO) were assessed by comparing the centroid values of prostate contours delineated on PRE-MRIs. MM-MRIs were used for internal margin (IM) assessment, and PTV margin was calculated using the van Herk formula. Results: We delineated 400 prostate contours on PRE-MRI images. SM was 0.57 ± 0.42, 2.45 ± 1.98, and 2.28 ± 2.08 mm in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) directions, respectively, after bone localization and 0.76 ± 0.57, 1.89 ± 1.60, and 2.02 ± 1.79 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after prostate localization. IO was 1.06 ± 0.58, 2.32 ± 1.08, and 3.30 ± 1.85 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after bone localization and 1.11 ± 0.55, 2.13 ± 1.07, and 3.53 ± 1.65 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively, after prostate localization. Average IM was 2.12 ± 0.86, 2.24 ± 1.07, and 2.84 ± 0.88 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Calculated PTV margin was 2.21, 5.16, and 5.40 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Conclusions: Movements in the SI direction were the largest source of variability in definitive prostate RT, and interobserver variability was a non-negligible source of margin. The optimal PTV margin should also consider the internal margin.

Indexed as

interfractional setup margininterobserver variabilityintrafractional motionMRI-guided radiotherapyprostate cancerPTV margin

Identifiers

PMID38173837
PMCPMC10761547
OpenAlexW4390008329

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.