Trial reportRadiation oncology (London, England)2015
Optimization of carbon ion and proton treatment plans using the raster-scanning technique for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.
Trial report 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proton therapy for pancreatic cancer: real-world single-center experience of efficacy, toxicity, and predictors of outcome.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Comparing different boost concepts and beam configurations for proton therapy of pancreatic cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Rotating Gantries Provide Individualized Beam Arrangements for Charged Particle Therapy.Cancers · 2023Article
- An adaptive planning strategy in carbon ion therapy of pancreatic cancer involving beam angle selection.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Robust Angle Selection in Particle Therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Comparison of different treatment planning approaches for intensity-modulated proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost for pancreatic cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Simulation study of dosimetric effect in proton beam therapy using concomitant boost technique for unresectable pancreatic cancers.Japanese journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Effective radiotherapeutic treatment intensification in patients with pancreatic cancer: higher doses alone, higher RBE or both?Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2017Review
- Worst case optimization for interfractional motion mitigation in carbon ion therapy of pancreatic cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the thesis is to improve radiation plans of patients with locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer by using carbon ion and proton beams. PATIENTS AND
methodsUsing the treatment planning system Syngo RT Planning (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) a total of 50 treatment plans have been created for five patients with the dose schedule 15 × 3 Gy(RBE). With reference to the anatomy, five field configurations were considered to be relevant. The plans were analyzed with respect to dose distribution and individual anatomy, and compared using a customized index.
resultsWithin the index the three-field configurations yielded the best results, though with a high variety of score points (field setup 5, carbon ion: median 74 (range 48-101)). The maximum dose in the myelon is low (e.g. case 3, carbon ion: 21.5 Gy(RBE)). A single posterior field generally spares the organs at risk, but the maximum dose in the myelon is high (e.g. case 3, carbon ion: 32.9 Gy(RBE)). Two oblique posterior fields resulted in acceptable maximum doses in the myelon (e.g. case 3, carbon ion: 26.9 Gy(RBE)). The single-field configuration and the two oblique posterior fields had a small score dispersion (carbon ion: median 66 and 58 (range 62-72 and 40-69)). In cases with topographic proximity of the organs at risk to the target volume, the single-field configuration scored as well as the three-field configurations.
conclusionIn summary, the three-field configurations showed the best dose distributions. A single posterior field seems to be robust and beneficial in case of difficult topographical conditions and topographical proximity of organs at risk to the target volume. A setup with two oblique posterior fields is a reasonable compromise between three-field and single-field configurations.
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.