ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
An automated method to establish patient specific asymmetric intrafraction motion monitoring tolerances for prostate radiotherapy.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntrafraction motion management is recognized as a critical component of radiotherapy. While clinical trials often recommend its use, they rarely define motion management tolerances. Consequently, institutions set tolerance levels independently, often without considering patient specific anatomy, dose distributions or direction of motion. This study introduces an automated method that can be used to derive patient specific, asymmetric intrafraction motion monitoring tolerances based on individualized treatment plans.
methodsTreatment plans for 20 prostate cancer patients receiving a simultaneous integrated boost to dominant intraprostatic lesions (DIL) were retrospectively analyzed. Referred to as the isocentre translation method, patient movement was simulated by recalculating plans with the isocentre shifted by 2, 4 and 5 mm in six different directions. The magnitude and direction that resulted in violations of dose constraints for organ at risk (OAR) rectum, bladder and urethra was determined assuming a systematic shift for all fractions. A second automated approach, the contour translation method, used Eclipse Scripting API to estimate directional tolerances via contour translation and Boolean operations, avoiding dose recalculation. Results for this method were validated against the isocentre translation method and compared for efficiency by assessing processing time.
resultsThe magnitude and direction of motion to cause OAR constraint violations were organ and patient specific. Urethral violations were most sensitive to shifts toward the DIL, whereas bladder and rectum constraints were primarily affected by anterior/superior and posterior shifts, respectively. The contour translation method was demonstrated to be equivalent to the isocentre translation method within an equivalence margin of 0.5 mm. The contour translation method significantly reduced processing time (4 min 40s vs. 47 min 52s per patient).
conclusionThe direction and extent of motion impacting OAR constraints vary by patient and organ, supporting the need for personalized intrafraction motion monitoring tolerances. The proposed contour translation method provides a practical, efficient process that is able to facilitate individualized motion management in clinical workflows.
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.