ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
Clinical implementation of real time motion management for prostate SBRT: A radiation therapist's perspective.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: The adoption of hypo-fractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for treating prostate cancer has led to an increase in specialised techniques for monitoring prostate motion. The aim of this study was to comprehensively review a radiation therapist (RTT) led treatment process in which two such systems were utilised, and present initial findings on their use within a SBRT prostate clinical trial. Materials and Methods: 18 patients were investigated, nine were fitted with the Micropos RayPilot Results: A significant difference was found in the Lat displacement between devices (P=0.003). A more consistent bladder volume was reported in the HC group (68.03 cc to 483.7 cc RP, 196.11 cc to 313.85 cc HC). No significant difference was observed in mean dose to the bladder, rectum and bladder dose maximum between the groups. Comparison of the rectal dose maximum between the groups reported a significant result (P=0.09). Comparing displacements with toxicity endpoints identified two significant correlations: Grade 2 Genitourinary (GU) at 6 weeks, P=0.029; and no toxicity, Gastrointestinal (GI) at 12 weeks P=0.013. Conclusion: Both the directly implanted RP device and the urinary catheter-based HC device are capable of real time motion monitoring. Here, the HC system was advantageous in the SBRT prostate workflow.
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.