ReviewJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Best Practice: CT-guided Adaptive Radiotherapy Reference Planning on the Ethos Platform.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Online adaptive radiotherapy (ART) enables treatment plan modifications based on the patient's anatomy at each fraction, addressing limitations of conventional radiotherapy that relies on a static pre-treatment plan. CT-guided ART (CTgART), as implemented on the Varian Ethos platform, has gained increased clinical adoption over the past several years; however, its success is highly dependent on reference plan design due to limited on-table planning flexibility. As a result, clinicians creating and reviewing reference plans will greatly benefit from both understanding how upstream planning decisions affect the downstream adaptive process and proactively incorporating strategies that improve optimization robustness and efficiency on-treatment. We describe a planning framework that emphasizes integration of standard planning while incorporating the temporal workflow considerations. We term this new planning paradigm: Thinking in 4D. In this article, we provide practical recommendations and strategies, gained from high-volume clinical experience adapting hundreds of cases across multiple institutions, to guide the design of robust Ethos reference planning templates. These recommendations are based on accumulated clinical experience and are intended to complement, rather than replace, formal quantitative validation studies. These principles aim to improve adaptive plan quality, efficiency, and safety, while also supporting implementation, training, and routine plan checks for teams transitioning to planning in 4D.
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.