Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42281957›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2026

Daily adaptive radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma can negatively impact organ at risk dosimetry.

Hedda Enocson, André Haraldsson, Per Engström, Sofie Ceberg, Maria Gebre-Medhin, Gabriel Adrian, Per Munck Af Rosenschöld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Hedda EnocsonMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
André HaraldssonMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Per EngströmRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Sofie CebergMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Maria Gebre-MedhinOncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Gabriel AdrianOncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Per Munck Af RosenschöldMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) accounts for anatomical changes during treatment and may improve target coverage and spare organs-at-risk (OARs) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). This study aimed to develop a protocol defining dose evaluation criteria for target volumes and OARs to assess the need for ART. The protocol was applied to compare compliance between daily-ART and non-ART plans with varying CTV-PTV-margins. Materials and methods: A protocol defining dose criteria for target and OAR volumes was developed and used to evaluate ART in a retrospective cohort of 80 patients (2,170 fractions) treated with radiotherapy to 60.0-68.0 Gy (2 Gy/fraction). Synthetic CTs were generated from daily kVCTs and contours propagated using deformable image registration. Delivered doses (no-ART) and daily-ART treatments using 5 mm and 2 mm PTV plans were simulated. All daily distributions were evaluated using the protocol. Results: With 2 mm margins, daily-ART significantly reduced protocol violations compared to no-ART(7% vs 20.3%, p < 0.001), while no significant difference was observed with 5 mm margins(15.1% vs 17.3%, p > 0.8). For 2 mm margins, daily-ART resolved 610 violations but introduced 152 new violations. With 5 mm margins, 391 violations were resolved, while 472 violations were introduced. When adaptation was limited to fractions that initially presented violations, fewer new violations were introduced (2 mm: 60; 5 mm: 49). Conclusion: Daily-ART with 2 mm margins improved target coverage and reduced protocol violations, while larger margins increased OAR doses by enforcing full PTV coverage. Restricting daily ART to fractions with identified violations minimized the occurrence of newly introduced violations.

Indexed as

Adaptive radiotherapyDose trackingHead and neck cancerProtocol-driven adaptation

Identifiers

PMID42281957
PMCPMC13251744

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.