Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40071235›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025

Prospective radiotherapy quality Assurance leads to delineation guideline refinements for recurrent rectal cancer: Experience from the PelvEx II study.

F Piqeur, B J P Hupkens, D M J Creemers, S Nordkamp, M Berbee, J Buijsen, H J T Rutten, C A M Marijnen, J W A Burger, H M U Peulen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

F PiqeurDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
B J P HupkensDepartment of Radiation Oncology, MAASTRO, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Doctor Tanslaan 12, 6229ET Maastricht, the Netherlands.
D M J CreemersDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
S NordkampDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
M BerbeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, MAASTRO, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Doctor Tanslaan 12, 6229ET Maastricht, the Netherlands.
J BuijsenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, MAASTRO, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Doctor Tanslaan 12, 6229ET Maastricht, the Netherlands.
H J T RuttenDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
C A M MarijnenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333ZA Leiden, the Netherlands.
J W A BurgerDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
H M U PeulenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Michelangelolaan 2, 5623EJ Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Target volume delineation in locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is clinically challenging. To ensure the quality of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) within the PelvEx II trial, a delineation guideline was developed and prospective quality assurance (QA) was instated for all patients. Guideline adherence, the impact of QA on target volumes, and subsequent guideline refinements are described in this paper. Methods and materials: All PelvEx II patients, either RT naive patients (50-50.4 Gy) or reirradiation (30 Gy) patients, were eligible for QA prior to CRT. An online meeting with the treating physician and the QA team was planned for each patient prior to treatment, to peer review delineations. Adherence to each of the 7 (reirradiation) or 8 (RT naive) guideline recommendations was scored. Suggested target volume adjustments and any reasons to deviate from protocol were noted. When applicable, target volumes before and after QA were compared. Possible protocol refinements were discussed amongst the trial QA team. Results: Prospective review of 113 cases of LRRC was performed, resulting in a high QA compliance rate of 90 %. All guideline recommendations were followed in 53 % of cases. Changes to the GTV and CTV were advised in 21 and 39 cases respectively. A median increase of GTV (+29 % (p < 0.001)) and CTV (+15 % (p < 0.001)) was seen in reirradiation patients, versus a median CTV increase of + 6 % (p = 0.002) in RT naive patients following QA. Deviations from protocol were accepted in 30 cases (27 %). Thirteen protocol refinements were agreed upon. Conclusion: Peer-review of LRRC target volumes leads to altered target volumes in up to 48% of cases, resulting in an updated delineation guideline.

Indexed as

Delineation guidelineLocally recurrent rectal cancerQuality assurance

Identifiers

PMID40071235
PMCPMC11894322

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.