ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Associations of static anatomical geometry with planned dosimetric endpoints in prostate radiotherapy: a multicenter study.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate associations between static anatomical geometry and planned dosimetric endpoints in prostate radiotherapy using a unified multicenter workflow, with particular emphasis on OAR dose metrics. Methods: We analyzed 37 patients from four centers with planning CT and DICOM-RT objects (RTSTRUCT/RTPLAN/RTDOSE). ROI masks were rasterized from RTSTRUCT. Dose grids were reconstructed from RTDOSE, resampled to the CT grid for voxel-wise dose sampling, and DVH metrics were recomputed using a unified implementation. We extracted geometric features of targets and organs at risk (OARs), including volume and longitudinal extent, and evaluated their associations with key planned dosimetric endpoints, with particular emphasis on OAR dose metrics. Target coverage metrics were analyzed as secondary exploratory endpoints. A systematic QC audit was performed for atypical dose results. In addition, an independent institutional DICOM cohort was used to assess workflow applicability in a real-world clinical setting. Results: In the main cohort, bladder volume and longitudinal extent showed consistent, directionally aligned associations with multiple bladder DVH endpoints. Prescription-normalized sensitivity analyses in cases with explicit RTPLAN target prescription-dose information showed similar bladder-related patterns. Near-zero bladder D Conclusion: Under contemporary planning and PTV-margin practices, inter-patient anatomical geometry was consistently associated with planned OAR dosimetric endpoints within a static planned-dose (RTDOSE-based) DVH evaluation.
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.