ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Target Contour Consistency During Magnetic Resonance-Guided Online Adaptive Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Adaptive magnetic resonance-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) requires expeditious recontouring of target volumes based on daily anatomy. Contouring of the gross tumor volume (GTV) is frequently performed by covering radiation oncologists who may be less familiar with the case than the primary physician (PP). The objective of this study is to determine consistency in GTV contouring between PP and covering physician (CP) and to analyze the effect of resources to support accurate GTV delineation. Methods and Materials: Between 2021 and 2023, 59 patients underwent 302 fractions of MRgSBRT at our institution. GTVs were analyzed for the effect of 3 different types of contouring support resources: (a) number of slices of the original GTV, (b) external software displaying original GTV contours, and (c) alerting if GTVs differed > 10% from the original. Differences between physicians and contouring support resources were analyzed for different tumor sites and fractions using 2-tailed Results: One hundred nineteen out of 302 (39.4%) MRgSBRT treatments were supervised by a CP. The difference in the mean absolute percent volume change of GTV compared with original GTV for PPs (11.1%) versus CPs (4.6%) across all treatment fractions was statistically significant ( Conclusions: Our results show larger GTV changes by PPs for most tumor sites with little impact from contouring support resources. Observed differences might be related to higher contouring confidence of PPs who are more familiar with the case. Further investigation into enhancing contouring support methods is warranted.
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.