ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Early Experience Comparing Reduced Planning Target Volume Margins Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scan Guided Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy to Nonadaptive, Traditional Margin Plans for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2026. 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
Purpose: Radiation therapy (RT) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) requires substantial planning target volume (PTV) margins to accommodate bladder-filling variability. We hypothesized that cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan guided online adaptive (AD) RT (oART) improves target coverage while reducing normal tissue exposure compared with non-AD RT. Methods and Materials: Over the course of a year, 8 patients with MIBC received oART. Five patients received 55 Gy in 20 fractions to a clinical target volume (CTV) that was expanded from the transurethral resection of a bladder tumor bed and 46 Gy to the remaining bladder; in contrast, 3 patients had the entire bladder designated as the high-dose CTV. PTVs were 7 mm isometric expansions of CTVs for AD treatment and non-AD (scheduled [SC]) treatment plans versus 15 mm for conventional large margin (LM) treatment plans. Target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) dosimetry for AD treatment plans were compared with SC and LM treatment plans per fraction using the Wilcoxon paired test. Total treatment time and acute toxicities were assessed. Results: The AD treatment plan was selected for the delivery of all fractions. Daily bladder volumes differed from simulation by a mean of 60 (SD, ± 66) cc. The CTV D98% > 98% was met for 160 (100%) of fractions with AD treatment plans versus 140 (87.5%) for LM and 67 (41.9%) with SC treatment plans. The CTV_high V90% = 100% for all AD treatment plans. Besides rectum_V30, AD treatment plans reduced OAR exposure for all metrics. Target and OAR objectives were met for 62.3%, 55.4%, and 91.2% of SC, LM, and AD treatment plans, respectively. Median fraction time was 24.7 minutes. Acute toxicity included only 3 grade 1 toxicity events and 2 grade 2 genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity events, with no occurrences of grade 3 or higher. Conclusions: oART achieved acceptable dosimetry for target volumes with a reduced PTV margin of 7 mm, despite considerable daily bladder volume variation. AD treatment plans improved target coverage and OAR dosimetry. Future patient-centered studies should explore the long-term clinical impact of reduced margin of oART for MIBC.
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.