A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Prospective planning comparison of magnetic resonance-guided vs. internal target volume-based stereotactic body radiotherapy of hepatic metastases - Which patients do really benefit from an MR-linac? | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose/objective: To compare online MR-guided SBRT (MRgRT) of liver metastases with state-of-the-art ITV-based SBRT (ITV-SBRT) and assess which patients benefit most from MRgRT.

Materials And Methods: In a prospective randomized trial (MAESTRO study, NCT05027711), patients were randomized to either gated and online adaptive MRgRT or ITV-SBRT if a biologically effective dose (BED) of 100 Gy was feasible with ITV-SBRT. Otherwise, patients were treated with MRgRT. In this subgroup analysis of 20 patients, a dosimetric comparison of MRgRT and ITV-SBRT plans was performed. Tumor control and normal tissue complication probabilities were calculated.

Results: In 40 % of all patients, MRgRT enabled SBRT with less fractions and/or higher prescription BED. Almost all target volume metrics were improved with MRgRT. MRgRT PTV D95% was significantly higher in the overall cohort (91.0 ± 22.9 Gy vs. 79.5 ± 27.2 Gy, p = 0.001), in uncritical (111.3 ± 6.2 Gy vs. 104.7 ± 4.1 Gy, p = 0.022) and in critical cases with limited healthy liver volume or nearby gastrointestinal organs at risk (74.1 ± 16.9 Gy vs. 58.5 ± 18.5 Gy, p = 0.041). Target volume V100% was also superior with MRgRT. Calculated 2-year tumor control probability was significantly superior with MRgRT overall (73.0 ± 6.2 % vs. 69.7 ± 7.9 %, p = 0.002), in uncritical cases (78.3 ± 1.4 % vs. 76.8 ± 1.0 %, p = 0.022) and in critical cases (68.5 ± 4.8 % vs. 63.8 ± 5.8 %, p = 0.041), without elevated normal tissue complication probability.

Conclusion: Dosimetrically, gated MRgRT was beneficial for virtually all the hepatic metastases analyzed in this study. Patients with metastases located critically near gastrointestinal OAR or with limited healthy liver volume should be allocated to centers providing MRgRT.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11926716PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2025.100941DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mrgrt
11
hepatic metastases
8
patients benefit
8
mrgrt itv-sbrt
8
tumor control
8
normal tissue
8
tissue complication
8
target volume
8
p = 0022 critical
8
critical cases
8

Similar Publications