ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Challenges and opportunities to minimize the dose in the neurovascular bundles during prostate radiotherapy.
Article in Clinical and translational 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRadiation damage to the neurovascular bundles (NVB) has been linked to erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer radiotherapy (PCa). NVB sparing using coplanar and non-coplanar automated treatment planning is presented here in two settings: (1) without compromising target coverage, (2) allowing target coverage compromise. MATERIAL AND
methods20 previously treated patients with localized PCa. Based on a MRI-CT match, the NVB were retrospectively delineated. All treatment plans (5 × 7.25 Gy) were automatically generated using Erasmus-iCycle (in-house automated treatment planning algorithm). Non-NVB sparing (non-NVBsparing) plans and NVB sparing plans in two settings were generated: (1) uncompromised NVB sparing (u-NVBsparing; maintaining target coverage) (2) and compromised NVB sparing (c-NVBsparing; allowing target underdosage). Coplanar and non-coplanar beam arrangements were compared. U-NVBsparing was compared to non-NVBsparing. C-NVBsparing plans were visualized in Pareto fronts. Statistical significance (p-value < 0.05) was determined by Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsu-NVBsparing compared to non-NVBsparing plans showed statistically significant median reductions in NVB D0.1 cc (38.9 vs 42.6 Gy for coplanar; 38.9 vs 43.3 Gy for non-coplanar) and Dmean (25.6 vs 30.0 Gy for coplanar; 24.7 vs 30.2 Gy for noncoplanar). Further lowering NVB D0.1 cc in c-NVBsparing plans clearly correlated to lower target coverage. Non-coplanar c-NVBsparing plans maintained significantly higher target coverages for similar NVB D0.1 cc values, compared to coplanar plans.
conclusionNVB sparing without compromising target coverage is feasible. No clinically relevant benefit was found for non-coplanar compared to coplanar NVB sparing plans, although overall statistically superior. Further sparing of the NVB comes at the cost of target coverage, for which a Pareto front could be used as a tool in clinical practise.
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.