ArticleBJR open2025
A unified workflow for classifying patterns of locoregional failure using radiotherapy treatment planning dose distributions.
Article in BJR open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This work describes a unified workflow for classifying patterns of locoregional recurrence (LRR) using radiotherapy planning dose distributions. This approach aims to incorporate dose parameters into LRR classifications and facilitate application across different treatment sites and dose prescriptions to standardise classification terminology. Methods: The relapse diagnostic CT (rCT) and manually delineated relapse gross tumour volume (rGTV) were co-registered with the radiotherapy planning CT (pCT) using deformable image registration (DIR). The DIR accuracy was quantified using the target registration error (TRE) using the absolute centroid distance between cancer site-specific regions of interest (ROIs). Dosimetric structures were delineated for planning regions receiving 95% of the dose prescribed to high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk CTVs, relative to the cancer site or trial. The mapped rGTV was compared relative to each dose structure and classified into one of five categories: central and peripheral high-dose (Type A, Type B), central and peripheral elective-dose (Type C, Type D), and extraneous dose (Type E) failures. Results: The unified workflow was successfully implemented on two different patient use cases, one from the IMPORT HIGH breast cancer trial, one from the VoxTox head-and-neck study, classifying LRR as Type A and Type E failures, respectively. Conclusion: This workflow for classifying LRR is applicable across different cancer sites, despite differences in treatment protocol, target dose, and dose delivery. This provides a basis for utilising radiotherapy dose distributions to analyse patterns of failure irrespective of trial design or cancer-site. Advances in knowledge: Standardised classifications of LRR that are correlated with the planning dose distribution could provide insight into the underlying causes of LRR burden post-radiotherapy and allow for critical evaluation of the current concepts of defined clinical tumour volumes and optimal PTV dose regions.
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.