ArticleScientific reports2024
Online adaptive radiotherapy in stereotactic body radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of CBCT-Guided Online Adaptive Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2026Review
- Case Report: Innovative radiotherapy strategies in advanced colon cancer with oligometastasis: a case of online adaptive radiotherapy and lattice stereotactic re-irradiation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Time-saving potential of daily online adaptive proton therapy for head and neck cancers by reducing number of beams.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) has emerged as a promising treatment modality for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study is to assess the dosimetric efficacy of online adaptive radiotherapy (ART) in comparison to image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for pancreatic cancer. We conducted a retrospective analysis involving 8 patients diagnosed with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The gross tumor volume (GTV) delineates the visible extent of the tumor on imaging, while the planning tumor volume (PTV) was generated by expanding 5 mm from the GTV and ensuring a 3 mm distance from the small intestine, duodenum, and stomach simultaneously. Treatment planning was executed using the United Imaging Healthcare Treatment Planning System workstation. The control group underwent evaluation based on daily validated fan-beam CT (FBCT) scans, assessing both the dose delivered to actual organs at risk (OARs) and the target volume. Radiotherapy plans were developed utilizing simulation CT, and conventional radiotherapy with daily image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) was administered using FBCT-Linac. Conversely, patients in the study group received daily validated FBCT-guided adaptive radiotherapy plans, with a focus on mean dose assessment of both the target volume and OARs. Subsequently, we compared the average outcomes of each treatment fraction between IGRT and online adaptive radiotherapy (ART). Comparison between ART and IGRT treatment plans revealed significant differences in various dosimetric parameters: For PTV: V98%: ART (96.28%) vs IGRT (89.73%), p = 0.000, V95%: ART (96.28%) vs IGRT (89.73%), p = 0.031, V90%: ART (98.58%) vs IGRT (93.65%), p = 0.000, Dmean: ART (4912.91) vs IGRT (4804.11), p = 0.000. For GTV: V100%: ART (97.96%) vs IGRT (94.85%), p = 0.314, V98%: ART (100.00%) vs IGRT (96.83%), p = 0.000, V90%: ART (100.00%) vs IGRT (97.75%), p = 0.000, Dmean: ART (4972.17) vs IGRT (4907.23), p = 0.000. For the duodenum: D0.5cc: ART (2883.92) vs IGRT (3359.35), p = 0.000, D1cc: ART (2726.32) vs IGRT (3128.66), p = 0.001, D5cc: ART (2051.96) vs IGRT (2273.93), p = 0.015, D10cc: ART (1650.73) vs IGRT (1731.74), p = 0.211. For the small bowel: D0.5cc: ART (3022.3) vs IGRT (3142.64), p = 0.037. D5cc: ART (2151.09) vs IGRT (2389.15), p = 0.043, D10cc: ART (1775.20) vs IGRT (1942.00), p = 0.079. For the stomach: D0.5cc: ART (3353.92) vs IGRT (4117.85), p = 0.000, D5cc: ART (2860.20) vs IGRT (3235.41), p = 0.000, D10cc: ART (2553.72) vs IGRT (2836.73), p = 0.000. For the Dmean of the left kidney and right kidney: Left kidney: ART (248.28) vs IGRT (239.65), p = 0.100. Right kidney: ART (314.55) vs IGRT (307.17), p = 0.345. These results suggest significant improvements in PTV coverage and sparing of OARs with ART compared to IGRT, indicating the potential of ART in optimizing treatment outcomes for pancreatic cancer patients. Compared to conventional IGRT-guided SBRT programs, ART-based SBRT for pancreatic cancer not only enhances the dose distribution to the target volume but also mitigates the radiation exposure to critical organs-at-risk (OARs) such as the duodenum, small intestine, and stomach. This approach may offer a more favorable safety profile while concurrently enhancing treatment efficacy.
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.