ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Comparative evaluation of dose accumulation strategies in the clinical reirradiation setting.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Dose accumulation in reirradiation can contribute to both treatment outcomes and safe cumulative doses. We demonstrated consensus strategies on dose accumulation for three clinical reirradiation scenarios. Materials and methods: For a lung patient, prescription, point and volumetric-based dose accumulations were generated, while isodose transfer also highlighted a visual approach. In a head and neck case, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DRT) fields were reconstructed from treatment records. For a brachytherapy gynaecological case, isodose transfer and full volumetric dose accumulation were generated. For pertinent organs at risk (OARs) equieffective doses (EQD2Gy) enabled comparisons between the different methods. Results: Large variations in cumulative EQD2Gy values in the lung case were calculated. Assuming prescription EQD2Gy, values were 181.9, 161.4 and 154.6 Gy to the spinal canal, brachial plexus and pericardium. Median cumulative point EQD2Gy values for these organs were 15.9, 81.9, 66.6 Gy and similarly, volumetric dose values were 13.9, 68.9 and 55.2 Gy respectively. The head and neck re-simulation showed significant process limitations, especially for brainstem (11.8 - 34.4 Gy EQD2Gy). For the brachytherapy case, cumulative EQD2Gy values were similar across direct point and volumetric dose summation (88.5 vs 88.0 Gy for bladder; 83.6 vs 80.0 Gy for rectum). Conclusions: Different reirradiation dose accumulation strategies can lead to significant variations in reported OAR cumulative dose. Prescription and point-based dose methods tend to overestimate cumulative dose, which could justify their application in time critical situations, but may limit treatment options. More advanced volumetric-based methods demonstrated improved consistency in cumulative dose reporting.
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.