ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024
Comparative analysis of delivered and planned doses in target volumes for lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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.
- Time series analysis of dosimetric changes in target volumes and organs at risk monitored by cone beam computed tomography during radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.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
Abstract
backgroundAdaptive therapy has been enormously improved based on the art of generating adaptive computed tomography (ACT) from planning CT (PCT) and the on-board image used for the patient setup. Exploiting the ACT, this study evaluated the dose delivered to patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and derived relationship between the delivered dose and the parameters obtained through the evaluation procedure.
methodsSABR treatment records of 72 patients with NSCLC who were prescribed a dose of 60 Gy (D
resultsThe prescribed dose was confirmed to be fully delivered to internal target volume (ITV) within maximum difference of 1%, and the difference between the planned and delivered doses to the PTV was agreed within 6% for more than 95% of the ACT cases. Volume changes of the ITV during the treatment course were observed to be minor in comparison of their standard deviations. Multiple linear regression analysis between the obtained parameters and the dose delivered to 95% volume of the PTV (D
conclusionsEvaluation of the dose delivered to patients with NSCLC treated with SABR using ACTs confirmed that the prescribed dose was accurately delivered to the ITV. However, for the PTV, certain ACT cases characterised by high HI deviations from the original plan demonstrated variations in the delivered dose. These variations may potentially arise from factors such as patient setup during treatment, as suggested by the statistical analyses of the parameters obtained from the dose evaluation process.
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.