ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Evaluation of online dose-guided adaptive fractionation for intact prostate radiotherapy.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDose-guided adaptive fractionation (DGAF) was proposed as a simpler alternative of adaptive radiation therapy, using organ variation simulation for proof of concept. However, its dosimetric benefit using actual daily anatomy changes in prostate cancer patients remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the dosimetric benefit and potential risk of DGAF for prostate cancer patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy using daily cone-beam CT.
methodsPatients assessed in this study were treated with moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (MHRT, n = 11, 244 total fractions) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT, n = 11, 55 total fractions). The optimizer algorithm computed the desired fractional dose based on favorable or unfavorable anatomical conditions derived from daily imaging, quantified by the sparing factor threshold (μ) and spread (σ). Three methods of estimating subsequent fractionation schemes were explored. The assessment relative to patient-specific probabilities observed post-treatment includes the cohort-based probability (CBP) approach, the individual-based probability (IBP) approach, and the hybrid approach that begins as CBP and transitions to the IBP after a certain number of fractions. The benefits/risks of DGAF were assessed by calculating the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) for both the CTV and the rectum in comparison to regular fractionation.
resultsDGAF demonstrated potential dosimetric benefits for intact prostate patients. The average and standard deviation of the sparing factor was 0.51 ± 0.11 for MHRT patients and 0.42 ± 0.04 for SBRT patients treated with endorectal-balloon. The hybrid approach for estimating the patients' threshold μ and spread σ outperformed other approaches assessed for both cohorts. The highest dosimetric benefit was retrospectively seen in MHRT patients where a hybrid approach were used, showing equal or decreased D15% EQD2.
conclusionDGAF demonstrated considerable rectum sparing potential, and the benefits increased with longer fractionation and advanced approaches toward subsequent fraction estimation.
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.