ArticleRadiological physics and technology2015
Four-dimensional layer-stacking carbon-ion beam dose distribution by use of a lung numeric phantom.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of dose distributions and respiratory motion tolerance for layer-stacking conformal carbon-ion radiotherapy.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Skin Dose Reduction by Layer-Stacking Irradiation in Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Parotid Tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- How should we manage internal margins in four-dimensional dose assessments?Radiological physics and technology · 2017Article
- Margin estimation and disturbances of irradiation field in layer-stacking carbon-ion beams for respiratory moving targets.Journal of radiation research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To extend layer-stacking irradiation to accommodate intrafractional organ motion, we evaluated the carbon-ion layer-stacking dose distribution using a numeric lung phantom. We designed several types of range compensators. The planning target volume was calculated from the respective respiratory phases for consideration of intrafractional beam range variation. The accumulated dose distribution was calculated by registering of the dose distributions at respective phases to that at the reference phase. We evaluated the dose distribution based on the following six parameters: motion displacement, direction, gating window, respiratory cycle, range-shifter change time, and prescribed dose. All parameters affected the dose conformation to the moving target. By shortening of the gating window, dose metrics for superior-inferior (SI) and anterior-posterior (AP) motions were decreased from a D95 of 94 %, Dmax of 108 %, and homogeneity index (HI) of 23 % at T00-T90, to a D95 of 93 %, Dmax of 102 %, and HI of 20 % at T40-T60. In contrast, all dose metrics except the HI were independent of respiratory cycle. All dose metrics in SI motion were almost the same in respective motion displacement, with a D95 of 94 %, Dmax of 108 %, Dmin of 89 %, and HI of 23 % for the ungated phase, and D95 of 93 %, Dmax of 102 %, Dmin of 85 %, and HI of 20 % for the gated phase. The dose conformation to a moving target was improved by the gating strategy and by an increase in the prescribed dose. A combination of these approaches is a practical means of adding them to existing treatment protocols without modifications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25833792What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.