ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
The use of dose surface maps as a tool to investigate spatial dose delivery accuracy for the rectum during prostate radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The use of dose surface maps as a tool to investigate spatial dose delivery accuracy for the rectum during prostate radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to address the lack of spatial dose comparisons of planned and delivered rectal doses during prostate radiotherapy by using dose-surface maps (DSMs) to analyze dose delivery accuracy and comparing these results to those derived using DVHs.
methodsTwo independent cohorts were used in this study: twenty patients treated with 36.25 Gy in five fractions (SBRT) and 20 treated with 60 Gy in 20 fractions (IMRT). Daily delivered rectum doses for each patient were retrospectively calculated using daily CBCT images. For each cohort, planned and average-delivered DVHs were generated and compared, as were planned and accumulated DSMs. Permutation testing was used to identify DVH metrics and DSM regions where significant dose differences occurred. Changes in rectal volume and position between planning and delivery were also evaluated to determine possible correlation to dosimetric changes.
resultsFor both cohorts, DVHs and DSMs reported conflicting findings on how planned and delivered rectum doses differed from each other. DVH analysis determined average-delivered DVHs were on average 7.1% ± 7.6% (p ≤ 0.002) and 5.0 ± 7.4% (p ≤ 0.021) higher than planned for the IMRT and SBRT cohorts, respectively. Meanwhile, DSM analysis found average delivered posterior rectal wall dose was 3.8 ± 0.6 Gy (p = 0.014) lower than planned in the IMRT cohort and no significant dose differences in the SBRT cohort. Observed dose differences were moderately correlated with anterior-posterior rectal wall motion, as well as PTV superior-inferior motion in the IMRT cohort. Evidence of both these relationships were discernable in DSMs.
conclusionDSMs enabled spatial investigations of planned and delivered doses can uncover associations with interfraction motion that are otherwise masked in DVHs. Investigations of dose delivery accuracy in radiotherapy may benefit from using DSMs over DVHs for certain organs such as the rectum.
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.