ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?
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. 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.
- Investigation of changes in planning target volume and regression probability of rectal boost using in-silico cone-beam computed tomography-guided online-adaptive radiotherapy.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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Dose-escalation radiotherapy for rectal tumours is increasingly considered as a non-operative approach, with online-adaptive radiotherapy (oART) supporting this approach by correcting inter-fraction tumour position errors. However, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided oART requires daily target volume delineation by different operators, leading to inter-operator delineation variability and potential dosimetric issues. This study aims to compare and quantify the inter-operator and inter-professional delineation variability of the rectal boost volume on CBCT, including volumes by an automatically delineated oART treatment planning system. Materials and methods: A rectal boost volume, defined as the primary tumour extended to the entire adjacent rectal wall, was delineated on 10 CBCTs from 5 patients by 15 operators: 4 expert radiation oncologists (ROs), 4 radiation therapists (RTTs) and 7 non-expert ROs. These contours were compared between the different professional groups. A comparison to the average volume of the group (ROs, RTTs, or non-expert ROs) with the lowest delineation variability was also performed for each individual volume including the volume automatically generated by an oART treatment planning system. Results: Delineation variability was the highest in the superior (range: 2.3-6.0 mm), and inferior (2.3-12.4 mm) directions, compared to the left (0.2-4.4 mm), right (0.3-2.0 mm), anterior (0.1-2.9 mm), and posterior (0.5-4.0 mm) directions. Non-expert ROs, RTTs, and automatic oART volume showed similar ranges of delineation errors when compared to the expert ROs' volume, which was chosen as reference volume since this professional group showed the lowest variability. Discussion: Expert ROs showed consistent results. Other professional groups exhibit similar variability, comparable to the automatic oART volume. Therefore, RTTs could safely perform the rectal boost delineation without non-expert ROs supervision in the absence of expert ROs during CBCT-based oART. Moreover, these findings provide quantitative data to compute accurate margins for the rectal boost planning target volume in a CBCT-guided oART 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.