ArticleBrachytherapy
Overview of treatment plan quality in a high dose rate prostate brachytherapy workflow.
Article in Brachytherapy. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeHigh dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) has been shown to be an effective treatment for prostate cancer, with treatment plan quality dependent on a number of factors. In this work, we report on the overall performance of our ultrasound (US)-based workflow and the impact of several treatment-specific variables. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients who underwent HDR-BT (boost, monotherapy, and retreatment) using Varian Bravos/US from 2021 to 2023 were sampled for this study. Treatment plan quality was analyzed and plans were categorized with regard to a number of metrics, including: prostate volume, treating physician, planning physicist, number of needles included, estimated planning time, rectum-prostate separation, and bladder-prostate separation. The performance of this program was compared to the performance of our program using previously used modality combinations: Varian Varisource/US, Elekta microSelectron/CT.
resultsPlan quality for our Bravos/US workflow was shown to be consistently above acceptability criteria for all personnel involved; on average: prostate V100%: 98.9% ± 0.1%, rectum V75%: 0.04 ± 0.01 cc, bladder V75%: 0.06 ± 0.01cc, urethra V125%: 0.00 ± 0.00 cc. Prostate coverage was statistically improved with this workflow compared to that using our previous modalities. There was a statistical correlation between organ-at-risk sparing/prostate coverage ratio and prostate volume, number of needles/prostate volume, bladder-prostate separation, and rectum-prostate separation. There was no correlation between plan quality and planning time.
conclusionsOur US-based HDR-BT program led to target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing that exceeded department thresholds. Results were acceptable regardless of the personnel involved and improved plan quality was obtained using more needles/prostate volume and increased spacing between the prostate and the rectum and bladder.
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.