ArticleBMC cancer2026
Clinical experience with an online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: successful treatment time optimization.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intra-adaptational motion during online adaptive radiotherapy: analysis of couch shifts and implications for margin design.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Automated planning architectures for online adaptive radiotherapy: A narrative review of the ethos and unity/Monaco platforms.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Review
- Adaptive Radiotherapy in the Era of Image Guidance and Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Review.Cancers · 2026Review
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
backgroundOnline adaptive radiotherapy (oART) can provide dosimetric advantages by accounting for daily anatomic changes, potentially improving target coverage and sparing of organs at risk. However, clinical adoption is sometimes limited by concerns over increased per-session treatment time. In this single-center study, we present 1.5 years of clinical experience focused on reducing the oART session time for prostate cancer patients.
methodsWe analyzed 1366 oART sessions from 69 prostate cancer patients treated on a Varian Ethos system between July 2023 and December 2024. We recorded (i) total session time - time between patient entry and exit from the treatment room, and (ii) adaptation time - time from start of the daily cone-beam-CT acquisition to completion of contour review/correction. We assessed the effects of two time-saving measures: automated contouring of the posterior rectal wall and installation of Varian HyperSight imaging. Statistical comparisons used the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsAutomated posterior rectal wall contouring decreased mean adaptation time from 16.0 to 10.5 min ([Formula: see text]). Installation of HyperSight reduced mean total session time from 25.8 to 23.3 min ([Formula: see text]); the adaptation component improved by 0.5 min but not statistically significant ([Formula: see text]). We achieved a total session time of [Formula: see text] min for 93% of sessions.
conclusionsCone-beam-CT-guided oART is feasible in routine prostate cancer practice. Our findings indicate that a 30-minute time slot is sufficient for most adaptive prostate cancer treatments, and a median total session time of 23 minutes can be reached through workflow and imaging optimization. Clinics considering oART should note that treatment time decreases with operator experience, and targeted measures can further reduce session duration.
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.