Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41821887›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026

Respiratory motion effects and plan robustness for lattice radiation therapy.

Rachael M Martin-Paulpeter, Peter A Balter, Luis A Perles, Ethan B Ludmir, Joshua S Niedzielski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rachael M Martin-PaulpeterDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Peter A BalterDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Luis A PerlesDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Ethan B LudmirDepartment of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Joshua S NiedzielskiDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Lattice radiation therapy (LRT), a form of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT), has shown promise in treating bulky tumors. It consists of hot and cold spots within the tumor, and the ratio between these doses is thought to be important in clinical outcomes. Respiratory motion is expected to degrade these peak-to-valley dose ratios (PVDRs) but has largely been ignored in LRT literature and clinical practice. This work aims to quantify the response of LRT dose distributions to motion to better inform motion management decisions and improve clinical outcomes. Methods: Respiratory motion of peak-to-peak amplitudes from 0.3 to 2 cm was simulated in 1 and 1.5 cm sphere lattice plans in a uniform phantom using dose perturbations. A similar analysis was repeated with retrospective patient plans to understand the effect of anatomical variation in motion response. Finally, deformed and rigid dose transformations were compared to understand the effect of tumor deformation on motion response. Results: Hot spheres (VTVH) lost coverage with increasing motion, while cold spheres (VTVL) experienced either an increase (anterior-posterior motion) or a decrease (superior-inferior motion). The ratio of the two (VTVH/VTVL D95%) decreased with increasing motion. Patient data results generally agreed with phantom results; 1.5 cm sphere plans were less sensitive to motion than 1 cm sphere plans, with statistical differences between the two responses. Mean (standard deviation) percent changes from no motion to 1 cm superior-inferior motion for patient plans are as follows with phantom values listed after: VTVH D80% change was -13.8 (1.2), -12.7 for 1.5 cm spheres and -15.8 (1.8), -13.8 for 1 cm spheres; and VTVH/VTVL D95% change was -7.1 (4.0), -15.0 and -13.0 (3.5), -12.0, respectively. Generally, no significant difference was observed between deformed and perturbed dose distributions. Discussion: Large tumor motion can degrade LRT dose distributions, which could lead to less effective treatments. Suggested cutoffs of 1 cm motion for 1.5 cm sphere plans and 0.5 cm motion for 1 cm sphere plans are proposed above which motion limiting strategies should be applied. Caution should be applied for tumors with large deformations, as these may change the dose distributions in unexpected ways.

Indexed as

lattice therapylivermotion managementradiation therapyrespiratory motionSFRT

Identifiers

PMID41821887
PMCPMC12975452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.