ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2015
Passive proton therapy vs. IMRT planning study with focal boost for prostate cancer.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modern proton therapy in prostate cancer: precision in practice.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Proton Versus CyberKnife Therapy Planning for Hypofractionated Treatment of Prostate With Focal Boost.International journal of particle therapy · 2024Article
- Focal Boost in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: A Review of Planning Studies and Clinical Trials.Cancers · 2023Review
- A treatment planning study of urethra-sparing intensity-modulated proton therapy for localized prostate cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
- Stability of daily rectal movement and effectiveness of replanning protocols for sparing rectal doses based on the daily CT images during proton treatment for prostate cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- A planning study of focal dose escalations to multiparametric MRI-defined dominant intraprostatic lesions in prostate proton radiation therapy.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- A biological modelling based comparison of radiotherapy plan robustness using photons vs protons for focal prostate boosting.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2018Article
- Long-term outcomes of proton therapy for prostate cancer in Japan: a multi-institutional survey of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExploiting biologic imaging, studies have been performed to boost dose to gross intraprostatic tumor volumes (GTV) while reducing dose elsewhere in the prostate. Interest in proton beams has increased due to superior normal-tissue sparing they afford. Our goal was to dosimetrically compare 3D conformal proton boost plans with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans with respect to target coverage and avoiding organs at risk.
methodsTreatment planning computer tomography scans of ten patients were selected. For each patient, two hypothetical but realistic GTVs each with a fixed volume were contoured in different anatomical locations of the prostate. IMRT and proton beam plans were created with a prescribed dose of 50.4 Gy to the initial planning target volume (PTV) including the PTV of the seminal vesicles (PSV), 70.2 Gy to the PTV of the prostate (PPS), and 90 Gy to the PTV of the gross tumor volumes (PGTVs). For proton plans, uncertainties of range and patient setup were accounted for; apertures were adjusted until the dose-volume coverage of PTVs matched that of the IMRT plan. For both plans, prescribed PTV doses were made identical to allow for comparing normal-tissue doses.
resultsProtons delivered more homogeneous but less conformal doses to PGTVs than IMRT did and comparable doses to PSV and PPS. Volumes of bladder and rectum receiving doses higher than 65 Gy were similar for both plans. However, volumes receiving less than 65 Gy were significantly reduced, i.e., protons reduced integral dose by 45.6 % and 26.5 % for rectum and bladder, respectively. This volume-sparing was also seen in femoral heads and penile bulb.
conclusionsProtons delivered comparable doses to targets in dose homogeneity and conformity and spared normal tissues from intermediate-to-low doses better than IMRT did. Further improvement of dose sparing and changes in homogeneity and conformity may be achieved by reducing proton range uncertainties and from implementing intensity modulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.