ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2025
Dosimetric evaluation of cone beam computed tomography-guided online adaptive radiotherapy in gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in 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.
- Development of CBCT-Guided Online Adaptive Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluated dosimetric values of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (oART) in patients with gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, accounting for interfractional and intrafractional motion. Methods: Four patients with stage I gastric MALT lymphoma received CBCT-guided oART. For each of the 60 treatment sessions, scheduled (SCH) and adapted (ADP) plans were generated. Dosimetric evaluation focused on clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs). Metrics included CTV D98 % and D95 %, mean dose to the liver and left and right kidneys, maximum dose to the spinal cord, and V5Gy for bilateral kidneys. Adaptive planning CBCT-based contours were propagated to synthetic CTs of SCH and ADP plans to assess interfractional motion. Post-treatment CBCT-based contours were propagated to synthetic CTs of the ADP plan to evaluate intrafractional motion. Results: ADP plans significantly improved CTV coverage: mean D98% increased from 94.7 % in the SCH plan to 98.6 %, and D95% from 97.3 % to 99.2 % (p < 0.001). Most OAR doses were reduced in the ADP plans, including bilateral kidney V5Gy (11.3 % vs. 8.3 %, p < 0.001) and spinal cord Dmax (9.8 Gy vs. 7.9 Gy, p < 0.001). Liver Dmean was slightly higher in the ADP plan (11.4 Gy vs. 11.1 Gy, p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in CTV and OAR dosimetric parameters between adaptive planning and post-treatment CBCTs (e.g., CTV D98%: 98.6 % vs. 98.5 %, p = 0.629). Conclusion: CBCT-guided oART improved target coverage and maintained post-treatment dosimetric stability in gastric MALT lymphoma, supporting clinical feasibility.
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.