ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Investigating the necessity of adaptive radiotherapy in tomotherapy of head and neck cancer patients.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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.
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
backgroundAnatomical variations that occur during radiation therapy in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients can lead to significant dosimetric changes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate dosimetric and volume changes in key anatomical structures for different treatment sites in HNC patients, and to determine the percentage of patients who need adaptive radiotherapy (ART) per treatment site.
methodsA total of 1,740 megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) images from 58 HNC patients treated with helical tomotherapy (HT) were exported to the PreciseART™ (Accuray) software. Volume changes in the planning target volume (PTV) and the organs at risk (OARs) in the planning stage and the first and last fractions of treatment were calculated. The differences between the values of actual accumulated and initial plan doses were used to determine which patients benefit ART.
resultsThe average volume changes between the planning stage and the first fraction were 3.93%, 4.49%, and 6.46% for the PTV, brainstem, and spinal cord, respectively, for all patients. However, the average volume changes between the first and last fractions of treatment were relatively small and included 0.84%, 3.62%, and 1.19% for the PTV, brainstem, and spinal cord, respectively. The average dose changes between the initial planned dose and the actual cumulative dose in the last fraction were in the range of 10.43-30.81%; 4.66-11.61%; 3.73-9.97%; and - 0.17-5.40% for the brainstem, left parotid, right parotid, and spinal cord, respectively, for all patients. A maximum of 10.53%, 28.57%, and 18.18% of patients with oral cavity, larynx, and nasopharyngeal cancers, respectively, needed ART. Patients with salivary gland cancers did not need ART.
conclusionAlthough monitoring the volume and dose changes of the tumor and OARs during the course of radiation therapy is important, not all patients need ART. Criteria such as weight loss and rapid tumor shrinkage should be considered when selecting candidate patients for ART. The time interval between CT simulation and the first fraction also plays an important role in the difference in the volume and dose to organs during the course of radiation therapy.
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.