ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
Are offline ART decisions for NSCLC impacted by the type of dose calculation algorithm?
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does the traffic light protocol capture dose deviations? A longitudinal CBCT-based dose-monitoring study in adaptive RT for LA-NSCLC.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Decisions for plan-adaptations may be impacted by a transitioning from one dose-calculation algorithm to another. This study examines the impact on dosimetric-triggered offline adaptation in LA-NSCLC in the context of a transition from superposition/convolution dose calculation algorithm (Type-B) to linear Boltzmann equation solver dose calculation algorithms (Type-C). Materials & Methods: Two dosimetric-triggered offline adaptive treatment workflows are compared in a retrospective planning study on 30 LA-NSCLC patients. One workflow uses a Type-B dose calculation algorithm and the other uses Type-C. Treatment plans were re-calculated on the anatomy of a mid-treatment synthetic-CT utilizing the same algorithm utilized for pre-treatment planning. Assessment for plan-adaptation was evaluated through a decision model based on target coverage and OAR constraint violation. The impact of algorithm during treatment planning was controlled for by recalculating the Type-B plan with Type-C. Results: In the Type-B approach, 13 patients required adaptation due to OAR-constraint violations, while 15 patients required adaptation in the Type-C approach. For 8 out of 30 cases, the decision to adapt was opposite in both approaches. None of the patients in our dataset encountered CTV-target underdosage that necessitated plan-adaptation. Upon recalculating the Type-B approach with the Type-C algorithm, it was shown that 10 of the original Type-B plans revealed clinically relevant dose reductions (≥3%) on the CTV in their original plans. This re-calculation identified 21 plans in total that required ART. Discussion: In our study, nearly one-third of the cases would have a different decision for plan-adaption when utilizing Type-C instead of Type-B. There was no substantial increase in the total number of plan-adaptations for LA-NSCLC. However, Type-C is more sensitive to altered anatomy during treatment compared to Type-B. Recalculating Type-B plans with the Type-C algorithm revealed an increase from 13 to 21 cases triggering ART.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.