ArticleScientific reports2025
Retrospective analysis and IMRT replanning of a 3D-CRT murine dose painting study for preclinical oxygen-guided radiotherapy.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A recent parallel-opposed 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) study in mice compared dose escalation (boost) in hypoxic (pO2 ≤ 10 torr) and non-hypoxic tumor subvolumes. They found a hypoxic boost led to significantly greater (p < 1e-4) tumor control probability than an equivalent non-hypoxic boost. We imported imaging and treatment data from this study for 31 SCC7 squamous carcinoma murine leg tumor cases-16 hypoxic boost and 15 non-hypoxic boost plans into a commercial treatment planning system for preclinical radiotherapy. Treatments were retrospectively recalculated with a fast Monte Carlo dose engine. We replanned cases with 3-field IMRT using an analogous uncertainty budget as 3D-CRT. Comparing both treatment groups, the hypoxic boost treatments had a significantly higher hypoxic fraction receive the boost prescription as planned in 3D-CRT (p < 1e-4) and IMRT (p < 1e-4). Surprisingly, retrospective 3D-CRT non-hypoxic boost treatments had a significantly lower non-hypoxic fraction receive the boost prescription (p < 1e-4). 3D-CRT non-hypoxic boost also substantially underdosed the entire tumor between 48-68 Gy compared to the "equivalent" hypoxic boost. In IMRT, the non-hypoxic volume receiving boost prescription was significantly higher in the non-hypoxic boost (p = 0.0215) and dosing in the entire tumor was identical between boost groups. This study displays IMRT's potential to advance the quality of preclinical dose painting studies.
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.