ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2026
Simulation-free palliative radiotherapy using diagnostic CT scans- is less more? A systematic review.
Review in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2026. 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.
- Workflow and dosimetric results for direct-to-unit single-fraction adaptive lung SBRT delivered on the ONE-STOP prospective pilot clinical trial.Clinical and translational 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: Cancer incidence continues to rise globally, with nearly half of patients requiring radiotherapy. Simulation-free radiotherapy (SFRT) using diagnostic CT scans instead of dedicated planning CTs is a streamlined alternative that may reduce patient visits and shorten time to treatment without impacting quality of care. This systematic review evaluates the practical aspects, dosimetric accuracy, and clinical outcomes of SFRT in palliative radiotherapy. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed and Embase were searched for publications on SFRT using multiple search terms. Included studies reported clinical or logistical endpoints such as treatment timing, toxicity, dosimetric errors, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, comprising retrospective and prospective cohorts with patient numbers ranging from 10 to 1000. SFRT was associated with significantly reduced intervals from consultation to treatment start compared to conventional workflows. Dosimetric uncertainties using diagnostic CT scans were generally low, with higher variability observed in thoracic cases. Patient selection typically excluded treatments involving steep dose gradients, reirradiation, or requiring immobilization devices. Limited clinical outcome data showed favourable toxicity profiles and effective symptom relief. Conclusions: SFRT offers a practical, efficient alternative for palliative radiotherapy, enabling faster treatment initiation and optimized resource use without compromising safety or efficacy in selected patients. The overall dosimetric accuracy appears acceptable for most cases, though caution is advised for thoracic lesions and complex treatment plans. Additional prospective studies with robust clinical endpoints are needed to further validate the role of SFRT in palliative radiotherapy.
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.