ArticleJournal of radiation research2018
Present developments in reaching an international consensus for a model-based approach to particle beam therapy.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2018. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy beam configurations for treating thoracic esophageal cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- NTCP Modeling of Late Effects for Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review.International journal of particle therapy · 2021Article
- Treatment planning for proton therapy: what is needed in the next 10 years?The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Particle beam therapy (PBT), including proton and carbon ion therapy, is an emerging innovative treatment for cancer patients. Due to the high cost of and limited access to treatment, meticulous selection of patients who would benefit most from PBT, when compared with standard X-ray therapy (XRT), is necessary. Due to the cost and labor involved in randomized controlled trials, the model-based approach (MBA) is used as an alternative means of establishing scientific evidence in medicine, and it can be improved continuously. Good databases and reasonable models are crucial for the reliability of this approach. The tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probability models are good illustrations of the advantages of PBT, but pre-existing NTCP models have been derived from historical patient treatments from the XRT era. This highlights the necessity of prospectively analyzing specific treatment-related toxicities in order to develop PBT-compatible models. An international consensus has been reached at the Global Institution for Collaborative Research and Education (GI-CoRE) joint symposium, concluding that a systematically developed model is required for model accuracy and performance. Six important steps that need to be observed in these considerations include patient selection, treatment planning, beam delivery, dose verification, response assessment, and data analysis. Advanced technologies in radiotherapy and computer science can be integrated to improve the efficacy of a treatment. Model validation and appropriately defined thresholds in a cost-effectiveness centered manner, together with quality assurance in the treatment planning, have to be achieved prior to clinical implementation.
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.