ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Diagnostic image-based treatment planning for online adaptive ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer radiotherapy with MR-Linac.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Diagnostic image-based treatment planning for online adaptive ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer radiotherapy with MR-Linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA new workflow was investigated for Elekta Unity MR-Linac by removing the computed tomography (CT)-simulation step and using diagnostic CT (DCT) for reference plan generation. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen patients with ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer treated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided adaptive radiotherapy were retrospectively enrolled. Targets and organs at risk (OARs) were recontoured on DCT, and Hounsfield unit conversions to relative electron density were calibrated for DCT. Reference plans were reoptimized and recalculated using DCT for Unity. Subsequent adaptive plans were designed through an adapt-to-shape workflow to edit targets and OARs via daily MRI to generate a new treatment plan. Bulk electron density information for Unity adaptive plan was compared between planning CT (PCT) and DCT for volumes of interest. Dosimetric parameters were evaluated between PCT- and DCT-based reference and adaptive plans for target coverage and OAR dose constraints.
resultsBulk relative electron density differences between PCT and DCT were within ±1% for targets and OARs, excepting the rectum. PCT and DCT-based reference plans did not significantly differ in mean target coverages or for OARs in dosimetric difference except for V
conclusionsBy removing the CT simulation step, it is feasible to use DCT for designing reference and adaptive plans in the Unity ATS workflow. The workflow increased adaptive radiotherapy efficiency and decreased patient waiting time and additional radiation dose.
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.