ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Optimal timing of organs-at-risk-sparing adaptive radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer under re-planning resource constraints.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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.
- Cost-effectiveness of personalized policies for implementing organ-at-risk sparing adaptive radiation therapy in head and neck cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and purpose: Prior work on adaptive organ-at-risk (OAR)-sparing radiation therapy has typically reported outcomes based on fixed-number or fixed-interval re-planning, which represent one-size-fits-all approaches and do not account for the variable progression of individual patients' toxicities. The purpose of this study was to determine the personalized optimal timing of re-planning in adaptive OAR-sparing radiation therapy, considering limited re-planning resources, for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Materials and methods: A novel Markov decision process (MDP) model was developed to determine optimal timing of re-planning based on the patient's expected toxicity, characterized by normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), for four toxicities. The MDP parameters were derived from a dataset comprising 52 HNC patients treated between 2007 and 2013. Kernel density estimation was used to smooth the sample distributions. Optimal re-planning strategies were obtained when the permissible number of re-plans throughout the treatment was limited to 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Results: The MDP (optimal) solution recommended re-planning when the difference between planned and actual NTCPs (ΔNTCP) was greater than or equal to 1%, 2%, 2%, and 4% at treatment fractions 10, 15, 20, and 25, respectively, exhibiting a temporally increasing pattern. The ΔNTCP thresholds remained constant across the number of re-planning allowances (1, 2, and 3). Conclusion: In limited-resource settings that impeded high-frequency adaptations, ΔNTCP thresholds obtained from an MDP model could derive optimal timing of re-planning to minimize the likelihood of treatment toxicities.
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.