↓ Skip to main content

To gate or not to gate - dosimetric evaluation comparing Gated vs. ITV-based methodologies in stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) treatment of lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 2,060)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
To gate or not to gate - dosimetric evaluation comparing Gated vs. ITV-based methodologies in stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) treatment of lung cancer
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13014-016-0699-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua Kim, Qixue Wu, Bo Zhao, Ning Wen, Munther Ajlouni, Benjamin Movsas, Indrin J. Chetty

Abstract

To compare retrospectively generated gated plans to conventional internal target volume (ITV)-based plans and to evaluate whether gated radiotherapy provides clinically relevant dosimetric improvements to organs-at-risk (OARs). Evaluation was performed of 150 stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatment plans delivered to 128 early-stage (T1-T3 (<5 cm)) NSCLC patients. To generate gated plans, original ITV-based plans were re-optimized and re-calculated on the end-exhale phase and using gated planning target volumes (PTV). Gated and ITV-based plans were produced for 3 × 18 Gy and 4 × 12 Gy fractionation regimens. Dose differences between gated and ITV-based plans were analyzed as a function of both three-dimensional motion and tumor volume. OARs were analyzed using RTOG and AAPM dose constraints. Differences between gated and ITV-based plans for all OAR indices were largest for the 3 × 18 Gy regimen. For this regimen, MLD differences calculated by subtracting the gated values from the ITV-based values (ITV vs. Gated) were 0.10 ± 0.56 Gy for peripheral island (N = 57), 0.16 ± 0.64 Gy for peripheral lung-wall seated (N = 57), and 0.10 ± 0.64 Gy for central tumors (N = 36). Variations in V20 were similarly low, with the greatest differences occurring in peripheral tumors (0.20 ± 1.17 %). Additionally, average differences (in 2Gy-equivalence) between ITV and gated lung indices fell well below clinical tolerance values for all fractionation regimens, with no clinically meaningful differences observed from the 4 × 12 Gy regimen and rarely for the 3 × 18 Gy regimen (<2 % of cases). Dosimetric differences between gated and ITV-based methods did generally increase with increasing tumor motion and decreasing tumor volume. Dose to ribs and bronchial tree were slightly higher in gated plans compared to ITV-based plans and slightly lower for esophagus, heart, spinal cord, and trachea. Analysis of 150 SABR-based lung cancer treatment plans did not show a substantial benefit for the gating regimen when compared to ITV-based treatment plans. Small benefits were observed only for the largest tumor motion (exceeding 2 cm) and the high dose treatment regimen (3 × 18 Gy), though these benefits did not appear to be clinically relevant.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 5 9%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 37%
Physics and Astronomy 13 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,152,950
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#8
of 2,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,807
of 321,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#1
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,060 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.