Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30661238›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2019

Report of the AAPM TG-256 on the relative biological effectiveness of proton beams in radiation therapy.

Harald Paganetti, Eleanor Blakely, Alejandro Carabe-Fernandez, David J Carlson, Indra J Das, Lei Dong, David Grosshans, Kathryn D Held, Radhe Mohan, Vitali Moiseenko and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

137 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Technical Considerations on Proton Therapy in NRG's Multi-Institutional Clinical Trials.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

77 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Harald PaganettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Eleanor BlakelyBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Alejandro Carabe-FernandezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David J CarlsonDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Indra J DasNew York University Langone Medical Center & Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Lei DongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David GrosshansDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Kathryn D HeldDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Radhe MohanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Vitali MoiseenkoDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Andrzej NiemierkoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Robert D StewartDepartment of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Henning WillersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

MDACC Clinical and Research Physics SupportU19CA021239 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI MOHAN, RADHE · 2014 to 2018
$11.2M
NCI NIH HHS U19 CA021239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biological effectiveness of proton beams relative to photon beams in radiation therapy has been taken to be 1.1 throughout the history of proton therapy. While potentially appropriate as an average value, actual relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values may differ. This Task Group report outlines the basic concepts of RBE as well as the biophysical interpretation and mathematical concepts. The current knowledge on RBE variations is reviewed and discussed in the context of the current clinical use of RBE and the clinical relevance of RBE variations (with respect to physical as well as biological parameters). The following task group aims were designed to guide the current clinical practice: Assess whether the current clinical practice of using a constant RBE for protons should be revised or maintained. Identifying sites and treatment strategies where variable RBE might be utilized for a clinical benefit. Assess the potential clinical consequences of delivering biologically weighted proton doses based on variable RBE and/or LET models implemented in treatment planning systems. Recommend experiments needed to improve our current understanding of the relationships among in vitro, in vivo, and clinical RBE, and the research required to develop models. Develop recommendations to minimize the effects of uncertainties associated with proton RBE for well-defined tumor types and critical structures.

Indexed as

Proton TherapyRelative Biological EffectivenessHumansNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedResearch Reportproton therapyRBErelative biological effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID30661238
PMCPMC9559855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.