ReviewJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Automated planning architectures for online adaptive radiotherapy: A narrative review of the ethos and unity/Monaco platforms.
Review in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Online adaptive radiotherapy (OART) modifies treatment plans using anatomy-of-the-day imaging, but successful clinical implementation depends on automated planning strategies that can generate high-quality plans within the constraints of an online workflow. This narrative review compares the automated planning architectures of the Varian Ethos and Elekta Unity/Monaco systems using a targeted literature search through July 2026. Ethos generates a daily adapted plan through goal-prioritized supervisory optimization governed by an unchanged clinical directive. Unity/Monaco provides Adapt-to-Position (ATP) and Adapt-to-Shape (ATS) pathways, with methods ranging from reference-segment recalculation and refinement to full online replanning with newly optimized fluence and segments. Rather than representing opposing planning paradigms, these systems differ in how ordered clinical goals or reference-plan information guide a selected adaptation method and in the degrees of freedom available within that method. Representative workflow and implementation studies are reviewed to provide clinical context, but they do not support direct comparisons of platform performance or superiority. MRIdian is acknowledged as another established MR-guided adaptive platform, although its planning architecture is beyond the scope of this focused review. Accordingly, the comparison is best understood by asking what guides the selected adaptation method and which degrees of freedom that method permits, rather than as a binary distinction between flexible and reference-based planning. This framework provides a conceptual basis for interpreting current commercial OART systems and may help guide the future development and evaluation of automated adaptive planning technologies.
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.