ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Dosimetric impact of baseline shift plan in a magnetic resonance linear accelerator according to target motion and plan characteristics.
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn this study, the dosimetric effect of baseline shift (BLS) in a magnetic resonance linear accelerator was investigated and compared with adapt-to-position (ATP), adapt-to-shape (ATS), and an uncorrected plan without adaptation.
methodsIn a simulation dataset consisting of 30 patients (10 prostate, 10 liver, 10 pancreatic), all structures were rigidly shifted by 1, 3, 5, and 10 mm separately in the superior-inferior and posterior directions, and four plans (ATS reoptimization, ATP reoptimization, BLS using the segment aperture morphing algorithm, and an uncorrected plan without adaptation) were generated for each shift condition. Planning target volume (PTV) coverage and PTV maximum dose (Dmax) were then compared. The dosimetric effects of BLS on the targets and organs at risk (OARs) under non-rigid anatomic changes were also evaluated using a clinical dataset based on magnetic resonance imaging acquired during treatment.
resultsIn the simulation analysis of superior-inferior shifts, target coverage using BLS was comparable to that using ATS and ATP across all disease sites and improved compared with that using the uncorrected plan. For posterior shifts, target coverage remained comparable to that using ATS and ATP; however, BLS increased the PTV Dmax at all posterior shift magnitudes (1-10 mm) in prostate and pancreatic cases, with limited increases in liver cases. In the clinical dataset, OAR doses upon left-right or anterior-posterior displacement were greater using BLS than using ATP, ATS, and uncorrected plans in the prostate and pancreatic cases, with limited increases in the liver cases.
conclusionsThe dosimetric impact of BLS relies on motion direction and plan characteristics. BLS was stable for superior-inferior shifts, whereas posterior shifts may increase PTV hotspots and OAR doses. Therefore, clinical application of BLS should consider motion direction and plan design rather than applying a uniform strategy.
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.