↓ Skip to main content

Knowledge-based radiation therapy (KBRT) treatment planning versus planning by experts: validation of a KBRT algorithm for prostate cancer treatment planning

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Knowledge-based radiation therapy (KBRT) treatment planning versus planning by experts: validation of a KBRT algorithm for prostate cancer treatment planning
Published in
Radiation Oncology, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13014-015-0416-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Obioma Nwankwo, Hana Mekdash, Dwi Seno Kuncoro Sihono, Frederik Wenz, Gerhard Glatting

Abstract

A knowledge-based radiation therapy (KBRT) treatment-planning algorithm was recently developed. The purpose of this work is to investigate how plans that are generated with the objective KBRT approach compare to those that rely on the judgment of the experienced planner. Thirty volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were randomly selected from a database of prostate plans that were generated by experienced planners (expert plans). The anatomical data (CT scan and delineation of organs) of these patients and the KBRT algorithm were given to a novice with no prior treatment planning experience. The inexperienced planner used the knowledge-based algorithm to predict the dose that the OARs receive based on their proximity to the treated volume. The population-based OAR constraints were changed to the predicted doses. A KBRT plan was subsequently generated. The KBRT and expert plans were compared for the achieved target coverage and OAR sparing. The target coverages were compared using the Uniformity Index (UI), while 5 dose-volume points (D10, D30, D50, D70 and D90) were used to compare the OARs (bladder and rectum) doses. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to check for significant differences (p < 0.05) between both datasets. The KBRT and expert plans achieved mean UI values of 1.10 ± 0.03 and 1.10 ± 0.04, respectively. The Wilcoxon test showed no statistically significant difference between both results. The D90, D70, D50, D30 and D10 values of the two planning strategies, and the Wilcoxon test results suggests that the KBRT plans achieved a statistically significant lower bladder dose (at D30), while the expert plans achieved a statistically significant lower rectal dose (at D10 and D30). The results of this study show that the KBRT treatment planning approach is a promising method to objectively incorporate patient anatomical variations in radiotherapy treatment planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Ghana 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
China 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 90 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 21%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 25 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Engineering 6 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 33 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 May 2015.
All research outputs
#12,923,613
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#557
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,268
of 263,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#19
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 263,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.