ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Comparison of online adaptation strategies for magnetic resonance guided prostate radiation therapy.
Article in Physics and imaging 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.
- Deep learning-enhanced image registration for accelerating daily adaptive magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
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 purpose: MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy allows for daily plan adaptation to account for anatomical changes. Two common strategies are adapt-to-position (ATP), involving re-optimization based on isocenter shifts, and adapt-to-shape (ATS), involving full recontouring and reoptimization. This study provides a dosimetric comparison of ATP and ATS using accumulated dose. Materials and methods: Dose accumulation was performed for 35 patients with prostate cancer treated on a 1.5 T MR-Linac. All patients received ATS-based treatment with either 30.0 Gy in 5 fractions (30.0/5) or 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions (42.7/7), using a 5 mm isotropic PTV margin. ATP plans were retrospectively simulated. For each fraction, dose was mapped to a reference image using deformable image registration and summed across fractions. Fractional and accumulated dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics were compared between ATS and ATP and correlated with daily anatomical variation. Results: ATP and ATS achieved equivalent accumulated CTV D95 and D98 for both regimens. In the 30.0/5 cohort, small but statistically significant differences in OAR dose were observed: accumulated bladder D40 was 4 % lower for ATP (1.27 Gy; p = 0.0004), and rectum D50 was 1 % lower for ATP (0.40 Gy; p = 0.0008). Differences in rectum D1cc and bladder D5cc were not significant. In the 42.7/7 cohort, femur D5 was 3 % higher for ATP (0.83 Gy; p = 0.02); other differences were insignificant. Dosimetric differences across strategies correlated with interfraction motion. Conclusion: ATP and ATS provided equivalent target coverage. OAR differences were statistically significant in some cases but remained within clinical tolerances, suggesting minimal clinical impact.
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.