Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39188998›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Quantification of Dosimetry Improvement With or Without Patient Surface Guidance.

Ke Sheng, Minsong Cao, Andrew Godley, Mu-Han Lin, Lukas Henze, Laura Hammond, Laurence Delombaerde, Kirsten Hierholz, Jana Kouptsidis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Ke ShengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Minsong CaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Andrew GodleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Mu-Han LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Lukas HenzeCancer Center Berlin-Neukölln, Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin, Germany.
Laura HammondRadiotherapy Department, Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, United Kingdom.
Laurence DelombaerdeDepartment of Oncology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kirsten HierholzKlinikum Darmstadt GmbH, Institut für Radionkologie und Strahlentherapie, Darmstadt, Germany.
Jana KouptsidisKlinikum Darmstadt GmbH, Institut für Radionkologie und Strahlentherapie, Darmstadt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Noncoplanar beams and arcs are routinely used to improve dosimetry for intracranial cases, but their application for extracranial cases has been hampered by the risk of collision. This has led to conservative beam selection whose impact on plan dosimetry has not been previously studied. Methods and Materials: A full-body 3-dimensional patient surface was acquired using optical cameras for a single lung patient at the time of computed tomography simulation. Eight stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plans were created for the patient, with varying degrees of noncoplanarity and deliverability. The plans included volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans ranging from simple, coplanar arcs to multiple noncoplanar arcs and IMRT beams. A total of 70 fields were created across the 8 plans, of which 21 fields were undeliverable with a 5-cm buffer. Organs-at-risk (OARs) metrics including R50, Dmax 2 cm from the PTV, lung V20, and chest wall V30 were evaluated. Five expert SBRT dosimetrists from 5 institutions evaluated field deliverability, with or without the guidance of the clearance map. Results: In the dosimetry evaluation, a clear trend in increasing dosimetric compactness and OAR sparing is observed with increasing plan noncoplanarity. R50, Dmax 2 cm, lung V20, and chest wall V30 decreased 41%, 39%, 43%, and 57%, respectively, from plan 1 (2 coplanar partial arcs) to plan 8 (19 noncoplanar IMRT beams). In the observer tests, the expert dosimetrists' ability to accurately discern beam deliverability because of collision significantly increases with the clearance map. The errors in predicting colliding fields were eliminated using the whole-body surface and clearance map, and the user was able to select fields based on plan quality and patient comfort instead of being overly conservative. Conclusion: The study shows that incorporating a personalized, whole-body clearance map in the treatment planning workflow can facilitate the adoption of noncoplanar beams or arcs that benefit the SBRT plan dosimetry.

Identifiers

PMID39188998
PMCPMC11345286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.