Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38707627›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Treatment planning evaluation and experimental validation of the magnetic resonance-based intrafraction drift correction.

Madelon van den Dobbelsteen, Sara L Hackett, Bram van Asselen, Stijn Oolbekkink, Bas W Raaymakers, Johannes C J de Boer

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Madelon van den DobbelsteenDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sara L HackettDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bram van AsselenDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Stijn OolbekkinkDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bas W RaaymakersDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johannes C J de BoerDepartment of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: MRI-guided online adaptive treatments can account for interfractional variations, however intrafraction motion reduces treatment accuracy. Intrafraction plan adaptation methods, such as the Intrafraction Drift Correction (IDC) or sub-fractionation, are needed. IDC uses real-time automatic monitoring of the tumor position to initiate plan adaptations by repositioning segments. IDC is a fast adaptation method that occurs only when necessary and this method could enable margin reduction. This research provides a treatment planning evaluation and experimental validation of the IDC. Materials and methods: An in silico treatment planning evaluation was performed for 13 prostate patients mid-treatment without and with intrafraction plan adaptation (IDC and sub-fractionation). The adaptation methods were evaluated using dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics. To experimentally verify IDC a treatment was mimicked whereby a motion phantom containing an EBT3 film moved mid-treatment, followed by repositioning of segments. In addition, the delivered treatment was irradiated on a diode array phantom for plan quality assurance purposes. Results: The planning study showed benefits for using intrafraction adaptation methods relative to no adaptation, where the IDC and sub-fractionation showed consistently improved target coverage with median target coverages of 100.0%. The experimental results verified the IDC with high minimum gamma passing rates of 99.1% and small mean dose deviations of maximum 0.3%. Conclusion: The straightforward and fast IDC technique showed DVH metrics consistent with the sub-fractionation method using segment weight re-optimization for prostate patients. The dosimetric and geometric accuracy was shown for a full IDC workflow using film and diode array dosimetry.

Indexed as

Intrafraction drift correctionIntrafraction motionMotion managementMR-guided radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38707627
PMCPMC11068926

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.