Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38831754›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2024

Treatment planning for MR-guided SBRT of pancreatic tumors on a 1.5 T MR-Linac: A global consensus protocol.

Guus Grimbergen, Hidde Eijkelenkamp, Louk M W Snoeren, Rana Bahij, Uffe Bernchou, Erik van der Bijl, Hanne D Heerkens, Shawn Binda, Sylvia S W Ng, Christelle Bouchart and 19 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. In response to Chuong et al.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024
    Article
  11. Letter to the Editor.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024
    Article
  12. 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

29 authors.

Guus GrimbergenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hidde EijkelenkampDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Louk M W SnoerenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rana BahijDepartment of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark.
Uffe BernchouDepartment of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark.
Erik van der BijlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hanne D HeerkensDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Shawn BindaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sylvia S W NgDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Christelle BouchartDepartment of Radiation Oncology, HUB Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium.
Zelda PaquierDepartment of Radiation Oncology, HUB Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium.
Kerryn BrownRadiation Oncology, ONJ Centre, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Richard KhorRadiation Oncology, ONJ Centre, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Robert ChuterThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Linnéa FreearThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Alex DunlopThe Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Robert Adam MitchellThe Joint Department of Physics, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Beth A EricksonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
William A HallDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Paola Godoy ScripesDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Neelam TyagiDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Jeremiah de LeonGenesisCare, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Charles TranGenesisCare, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Seungjong OhDivision of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Paul RenzDivision of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Andrea ShesselPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Edward TaylorPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Martijn P W IntvenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gert J MeijerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Artificial Intelligence powered virtual digital twins to construct and validate AI automated tools for safer MR-guided adaptive RT of abdominal cancersR01EB032825 · NIBIB · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI Neelam Tyagi, Harini Veeraraghavan · 2023 to 2026
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB032825
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Treatment planning for MR-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for pancreatic tumors can be challenging, leading to a wide variation of protocols and practices. This study aimed to harmonize treatment planning by developing a consensus planning protocol for MR-guided pancreas SBRT on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Materials and methods: A consortium was founded of thirteen centers that treat pancreatic tumors on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. A phased planning exercise was conducted in which centers iteratively created treatment plans for two cases of pancreatic cancer. Each phase was followed by a meeting where the instructions for the next phase were determined. After three phases, a consensus protocol was reached. Results: In the benchmarking phase (phase I), substantial variation between the SBRT protocols became apparent (for example, the gross tumor volume (GTV) Conclusion: A global consensus protocol has been developed for treatment planning for MR-guided pancreatic SBRT on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. Aside from harmonizing the large variation in the current clinical practice, this protocol can provide a starting point for centers that are planning to treat pancreatic tumors on MR-Linac systems.

Indexed as

Consensus protocolMR-guided SBRTPancreatic cancerTreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID38831754
PMCPMC11145226

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.