ReviewCancers2026
Adaptive Radiotherapy in the Era of Image Guidance and Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Review.
Review in Cancers, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) transforms radiotherapy from a static treatment plan into a monitored, feedback-driven process that can respond to anatomic and biologic change. This critical narrative review synthesizes foundational physics literature, consensus reports, prospective studies, randomized trials, implementation reports, and ART-specific artificial-intelligence validation studies, with emphasis on image guidance, evidence quality, and clinical actionability. Further the review separates image guidance, reduced margins, gating, tracking, plan-of-the-day selection, offline replanning, and online reoptimization because these related interventions have different evidence bases. ART is most compelling when anatomic change is frequent, dosimetrically important, measurable, and not adequately managed by population margins or conventional image guidance. Quantitative evidence is strongest for dosimetric recovery, organ-at-risk sparing, workflow feasibility, and selected toxicity reduction; evidence for survival improvement remains limited and heterogeneous. Offline ART has mature roles for progressive or systematic change, whereas online MR-guided and cone-beam CT-guided workflows address daily anatomy through same-session contour review, plan selection or reoptimization, and rapid quality assurance. Artificial intelligence can accelerate segmentation, synthetic CT generation, planning, and quality assurance, but clinically meaningful validation requires geometric, dosimetric, time, failure-rate, bias, and post-update monitoring. ART should be deployed through explicit adaptation triggers, validated dose-accumulation methods, independent quality management, and prospective endpoints connecting adaptive decisions to toxicity, tumor control, workflow efficiency, cost, access, and equity.
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.