ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Evaluation of radiotherapy planning approaches for head and neck patients with tumors close to the skin surface.
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.
- Evaluation of radiotherapy planning approaches for head and neck patients with tumors close to the skin surface.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
purposeIn radiotherapy of the head and neck (H&N) it is common for the clinical target volume (CTV) to extend to the patient's skin. Adding a margin for set-up uncertainty and delivery creates a planning target volume (PTV) that extends beyond the patient surface. This can result in excessive fluence being delivered to the build-up region and therefore the skin. This study evaluates four different planning methods used when inverse-planning H&N radiotherapy treatments with CTV extending to the skin. The aim of the study was to determine which planning method gives superior plan quality.
methodTen H&N cancer patients with a CTV contoured to the skin were inverse-planned using four planning methods. The planning methods compared were: cropping the optimization PTV back from the skin surface by 5.0, 3.0, and 0.0 mm and a virtual bolus method. For each planning method, the increased fluence at the skin surface was analyzed. The CTV coverage and skin doses were compared. Plan robustness was evaluated by applying an isocenter shift of ±3.0 mm in the major axes.
resultsThe planning method cropping the PTV 0.0 mm from the skin surface results in an increased fluence in the build-up region. The average volume of CTV receiving 98% of the prescription dose was 89.6% ± 3.4%, 91.6% ± 2.4%, and 93.5% ± 1.7% when cropped 5.0, 3.0, and 0.0 mm, respectively, and 93.4% ± 2.1% for the virtual bolus method. Introducing plan uncertainty affects CTV coverage the most when cropping 5.0 mm. When plan uncertainties are considered the methods of cropping 5.0, 3.0 mm, and the virtual bolus method have the same average skin dose within ±0.3%.
conclusionThis study shows that a virtual bolus planning method results in no increased fluence at the patient's surface, improves CTV coverage, and is the most robust to changes in setup and patient anatomy.
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.