ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
Does the traffic light protocol capture dose deviations? A longitudinal CBCT-based dose-monitoring study in adaptive RT for LA-NSCLC.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Traffic light protocols (TLP) standardize IGRT by reporting anatomical alterations presumed to proxy dosimetric change, yet this assumption is rarely verified. We therefore characterize the daily delivered dose and its longitudinal evolution during adaptive radiotherapy for LA-NSCLC and quantify how TLP reporting relates to dosimetric alteration. Materials and methods: Twenty-two patients with LA-NSCLC enrolled in a prospective trial (604 fractions, mid-treatment adaptation) underwent multi-task automated daily CBCT-based dose monitoring. For each fraction, the delivered dose and the accumulated dose were compared with the reference plan utilizing the existing dose-volume constraints. Longitudinal dose evolution and TLP-code associations were analyzed with piecewise linear mixed-effects models, with significance based on BH-FDR-adjusted q-values (q < 0.10). Results: Daily delivered dose respected planning constraints (median differences within ±3%) but varied between patients. At the population level, only lung V20Gy showed a deviation rate from start (β = 0.082%-points/day; q = 0.044). The deviation rate after plan-adaptation was not significant. Population deviation rates were largely dominated by inter-patient variability. Three DVH-parameters were significantly associated with TLP-codes. Code orange for tumour alterations was associated with PTVp V95% reduction as well as spinal canal D0.03cc increase of respectively -1.73%-points (q = 0.011) and 2.15%-points (q = 0.011). Code orange for spinal-canal alterations was also associated with PTVp V95%-reduction (β = -2.03%-points, q = 0.002). Code orange for lungs showed no significant association with any dose constraint after adjustment for days on treatment. Conclusion: TLP-code orange reporting is a partial proxy for PTV-coverage loss but an unreliable proxy for organ-at-risk dose. Dose deviation rates during treatment are patient specific. This highlights the need for continuous daily dose monitoring to inform ART-decisions during treatment.
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.