ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024
The clinical practice and dosimetric outcome of the manual adaptive planning during definitive radiotherapy for cervical cancer.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
proposeTo evaluate the advantage of the manual adaptive plans comparing to the scheduled plans, and explored clinical factors predicting patients suitable for adaptive strategy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty two patients with weekly online cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) were enrolled. The re-CT simulation was performed after 15 fractions and a manual adaptive plan was developed if a significant deviation of the planning target volume (PTV) was found. To evaluate the dosimetric benefit, D98, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) for the planning target volume (PTV), as well as D2cc of the bowel, bladder, sigmoid and rectum were compared between manual adaptive plans and scheduled ones. The clinical factors influencing target motion during radiotherapy were analyzed by chi-square test and logistic regression analysis.
resultsThe CI and HI of the manual adaptive plans were significantly superior to the scheduled ones (P = 0.0002, 0.003, respectively), demonstrating a better dose coverage of the target volume. Compared to the scheduled plans, D98 of the manual adaptive plans increased by 3.3% (P = 0.0002), the average of D2cc to the rectum, bladder decreased 0.358 Gy (P = 0.000034) and 0.240 Gy (P = 0.03), respectively. In addition, the chi-square test demonstrated that age, primary tumor volume, and parametrial infiltration were the clinical factors influencing target motion during radiotherapy. Multivariate analysis further identified the large tumor volume (≥ 50cm
conclusionWe found the most significant organ motion happened after 15 fractions during treatment. The manual adaptive plans improved the dose coverage and decreased the OAR doses. Patients with bulky mass or with parametrial infiltration were highly suggested to adaptive strategy during definitive radiotherapy due to the significant organ motion.
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.