ArticleJournal of radiation research2026
Prospective feasibility study of diagnostic CT-based simulation-free palliative radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional radiotherapy (RT) workflows require planning computed tomography (pCT) and treatment planning. However, these processes often take several days, leading to delays in RT initiation. Simulation-free radiotherapy (SFRT), which uses diagnostic CT (dCT) instead of pCT for treatment planning, may reduce the time from consultation-to-treatment delivery. However, the number of prospective studies conducted in Japan remains limited. This study prospectively evaluated the feasibility of SFRT in Japan. A single-center, single-arm prospective study (UMIN000054721) was performed in June 2024. This study included patients with vertebral metastases who were eligible for a single 8-Gy fraction. A dCT acquired within the last 56 days, without an immobilization device, and with an identifiable lesion, was required. The primary endpoint was the RT completion rate. The secondary endpoints included time in center (TIC), time from entering the consultation room to radiation beam-off, pain response and adverse events (AEs) at 4 and 12 weeks. Cone-beam CT (CBCT) verification was mandatory for patient setup. Five patients with six vertebral sites were enrolled. The RT completion rate was 100%. The mean TIC was 45 (range: 34-54) min. At 4 weeks, 25% of the patients presented with complete and partial pain responses. At 12 weeks, the complete response rate was 33%. None of the patients developed acute AEs. With appropriate patient selection and CBCT-guided verification, SFRT was feasible and safely implemented at a Japanese community hospital. Clinical trial registration: UMIN-CTR: UMIN000054721.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42490518What 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.