ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Organ-specific equivalent uniform dose constraints and radiobiological parameters for radiation treatment planning of abdominal tumors.
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.
- Organ-specific equivalent uniform dose constraints and radiobiological parameters for radiation treatment planning of abdominal tumors.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiation therapy planning (RTP) for abdominal tumors often requires multiple dose-volume constraints for each organ at risk (OAR), which vary with different fractionation schemes. This variability can complicate biologically optimized treatment planning. PURPOSE: This study aims to extract fractionation-independent dose constraints based on the concept of equivalent uniform dose (EUD), utilizing published clinical data for a range of fractionation regimens. The goal is to derive organ-specific radiobiological parameters as well as the EUD for each OAR that can be used in biologically optimized treatment planning for abdominal tumors, independent of the specific fractionation scheme applied.
methodsClinical dose-volume constraints for duodenum, stomach, and small bowel were compiled from available literature sources. These dose constraints were obtained for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT), hypofractionated RT, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and were associated with less than a 10% risk of grade 3 toxicity as categorized by CTCAE v.3 or v.4, RTOG, and EORTC. For each OAR, an iso-EUD fitting with EUD calculated based on the linear-quadratic (LQ) model or linear-quadratic-linear (LQ-L) model and a dose volume histogram generated from these dose volume constraints for each fractionation was applied to extract model parameters such as α/β ratio and 'n' (the volume effect of the OAR). Based on the obtained parameters, the dose constraint in EUD and the equivalent physical dose in 2Gy fraction (EQD2) were calculated.
resultsThe EUD constraints for LQ-L (LQ) models are 52.62 (55.10) Gy, 48.22 (48.60) Gy, and 46.10 (45.06) Gy, α/β values are 5.42 (5.59) Gy, 7.67 (6.76) Gy, and 12.15 (8.20) Gy, and 'n' values are 0.06 (0.01), 0.03 (0.02), and 0.06 (0.08) for duodenum, small bowel, and stomach, respectively. Additional two parameters for the three OARs in LQ-L are 5.15 Gy, 8.65 Gy, and 5.20 Gy for dt and 5.40, 4.72, and 3.33 for γ/α. The LQ-L model fits the clinical data better than the LQ model.
conclusionsThe obtained α/β values are comparable with those published previously. The extracted EUD constraints together with the volume effect parameter 'n' can be used for plan optimization and evaluation.
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.