Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40129726›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025

A dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy treatment delivery with real-time adaption and no motion correction.

Jonathan Hindmarsh, Scott Crowe, Julia Johnson, Chandrima Sengupta, Jemma Walsh, Sonja Dieterich, Jeremy Booth, Paul Keall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A prospective hazard analysis of real-time adaptive helical tomotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jonathan HindmarshImage X Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, NSW, Australia.
Scott CroweCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Julia JohnsonImage X Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, NSW, Australia.
Chandrima SenguptaImage X Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, NSW, Australia.
Jemma WalshCancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Sonja DieterichDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Jeremy BoothNorthern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Paul KeallImage X Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Eveleigh, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assesses the ability of a helical tomotherapy system equipped with kV imaging and optical surface guidance to adapt to motion traces in real-time. To assess the delivery accuracy with motion, a unified testing framework was used. The average 2 %/2 mm γ-fail rates across all lung traces were 0.1 % for motion adapted and 17.4 % for no motion correction. Average 2 %/2 mm γ-fail rates across all prostate traces were 0.4 % for motion adapted and 12.2 % for no motion correction. Real-time motion adaption was shown to improve the accuracy of dose delivered to a moving phantom compared with no motion adaption.

Indexed as

Helical tomotherapyMLC trackingOrgan motionReal-time adaptive radiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID40129726
PMCPMC11931245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.