ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2024
Quantitative assessment of intertarget position variations based on 4D-CT and 4D-CBCT simulations in single-isocenter multitarget lung stereotactic body radiation therapy.
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. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), geometric miss risks arise from uncertainties in intertarget position. However, its assessment is inadequate, and may be interfered by the reconstructed tumor position errors (RPEs) during simulated CT and cone beam CT (CBCT) acquisition. This study aimed to quantify intertarget position variations and assess factors influencing it.
methodsWe analyzed data from 14 patients with 100 tumor pairs treated with single-isocenter SBRT. Intertarget position variation was measured using 4D-CT simulation to assess the intertarget position variations (ΔD) during routine treatment process. Additionally, a homologous 4D-CBCT simulation provided RPE-free comparison to determine the impact of RPEs, and isolating purely tumor motion induced ΔD to evaluate potential contributing factors.
resultsThe median ΔD was 4.3 mm (4D-CT) and 3.4 mm (4D-CBCT). Variations exceeding 5 mm and 10 mm were observed in 31.1% and 5.5% (4D-CT) and 20.4% and 3.4% (4D-CBCT) of fractions, respectively. RPEs necessitated an additional 1-2 mm safety margin. Intertarget distance and breathing amplitude variability showed weak correlations with variation (R
conclusionsThis study provide a reliable way to assess intertarget position variation by using both 4D-CT and 4D-CBCT simulation. Consequently, single-isocenter SBRT for multiple lung tumors carries high risk of geometric miss. Tumor motion and RPE constitute a substantial portion of intertarget position variation, requiring correspondent strategies to minimize the intertarget uncertainties.
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.