ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
Treatment planning evaluation and experimental validation of the magnetic resonance-based intrafraction drift correction.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Motion Management and Baseline Shifts in Magnetic Resonance-Guided Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.Cancers · 2025Article
- Reconstructed dose and geometric coverage for tight margins using intrafraction re-planning on an integrated magnetic resonance imaging and linear accelerator system for prostate cancer patients.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.