Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38298884›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Full daily re-optimization improves plan quality during online adaptive radiotherapy.

Benjamin Tengler, Luise A Künzel, Markus Hagmüller, David Mönnich, Simon Boeke, Daniel Wegener, Cihan Gani, Daniel Zips, Daniela Thorwarth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  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

9 authors.

Benjamin TenglerSection for Biomedical Physics. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Luise A KünzelNational Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.
Markus HagmüllerSection for Biomedical Physics. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
David MönnichSection for Biomedical Physics. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Simon BoekeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Daniel WegenerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Cihan GaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Daniel ZipsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.
Daniela ThorwarthSection for Biomedical Physics. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Daily online treatment plan adaptation requires a fast workflow and planning process. Current online planning consists of adaptation of a predefined reference plan, which might be suboptimal in cases of large anatomic changes. The aim of this study was to investigate plan quality differences between the current online re-planning approach and a complete re-optimization. Material and methods: Magnetic resonance linear accelerator reference plans for ten prostate cancer patients were automatically generated using particle swarm optimization (PSO). Adapted plans were created for each fraction using (1) the current re-planning approach and (2) full PSO re-optimization and evaluated overall compliance with institutional dose-volume criteria compared to (3) clinically delivered fractions. Relative volume differences between reference and daily anatomy were assessed for planning target volumes (PTV60, PTV57.6), rectum and bladder and correlated with dose-volume results. Results: The PSO approach showed significantly higher adherence to dose-volume criteria than the reference approach and clinical fractions (p < 0.001). In 74 % of PSO plans at most one criterion failed compared to 56 % in the reference approach and 41 % in clinical plans. A fair correlation between PTV60 D98% and relative bladder volume change was observed for the reference approach. Bladder volume reductions larger than 50 % compared to the reference plan recurrently decreased PTV60 D98% below 56 Gy. Conclusion: Complete re-optimization maintained target coverage and organs at risk sparing even after large anatomic variations. Re-planning based on daily magnetic resonance imaging was sufficient for small variations, while large variations led to decreasing target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing.

Indexed as

Adaptive treatment planningMRI guided radiotherapyMR-LinacOnline plan optimization

Identifiers

PMID38298884
PMCPMC10827578

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.