ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Determining optimal GTV-to-PGTV margins for CT-guided dose-escalated radiotherapy with daily image guidance in locally advanced rectal cancer.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Determining optimal GTV-to-PGTV margins for CT-guided dose-escalated radiotherapy with daily image guidance in locally advanced rectal cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer yields pathological complete response rates of only 10%-20%. Dose-escalation strategies may improve outcomes, but optimal GTV-to-PGTV margins for CT-guided radiotherapy with daily IGRT remain undefined.
methodsTwelve LARC patients undergoing CT-guided daily IGRT with a simultaneous integrated boost were included. Daily diagnostic-quality fan-beam CT (FBCT) scans were acquired for IGRT. GTV and CTV were delineated on planning CT and all FBCTs. Target coverage margins were assessed by isotropically expanding the planning GTV until more than 95% of the voxels of the sequential GTVs were covered. A margin with a coverage probability threshold of 90% was defined as adequate. An independent validation cohort of 30 patients who underwent weekly FBCT-guided image guidance was further analyzed. Overlap volumes between PGTVs and organs-at-risk (OARs; bladder and small bowel) were calculated to assess OAR sparing.
resultsAnalysis of 286 FBCT scans showed that a 6 mm isotropic GTV-to-PGTV margin achieved>95% coverage in>90% of fractions. Compared with 10 mm expansion, a 6 mm PGTV reduced the overlap volumes with the bladder and small bowel by 68.5% and 68.4%, respectively. A 6 mm isotropic expansion achieved>95% coverage in 91.3% of fractions in the validation cohort.
conclusionA 6 mm isotropic GTV to PGTV margin provides adequate target coverage for most middle- and lower-rectal tumors while reducing OAR overlap. This finding could facilitate safer dose escalation while maintaining target coverage. However, larger margins may be necessary for smaller tumors or those located in the high rectum.
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.