Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30972922›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019

Clinical implementation of respiratory-gated spot-scanning proton therapy: An efficiency analysis of active motion management.

Edgar Gelover, Amanda J Deisher, Michael G Herman, Jedediah E Johnson, Jon J Kruse, Erik J Tryggestad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The emerging role of proton therapy for esophagus cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2020
    Review
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

6 authors.

Edgar GeloverDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.
Amanda J DeisherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.
Michael G HermanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jedediah E JohnsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jon J KruseDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.
Erik J TryggestadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this work is to describe the clinical implementation of respiratory-gated spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT) for the treatment of thoracic and abdominal moving targets. The experience of our institution is summarized, from initial acceptance and commissioning tests to the development of standard clinical operating procedures for simulation, motion assessment, motion mitigation, treatment planning, and gated SSPT treatment delivery. MATERIALS AND

methodsA custom respiratory gating interface incorporating the Real-Time Position Management System (RPM, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) was developed in-house for our synchrotron-based delivery system. To assess gating performance, a motion phantom and radiochromic films were used to compare gated vs nongated delivery. Site-specific treatment planning protocols and conservative motion cutoffs were developed, allowing for free-breathing (FB), breath-holding (BH), or phase-gating (Ph-G). Room usage efficiency of BH and Ph-G treatments was retrospectively evaluated using beam delivery data retrieved from our record and verify system and DICOM files from patient-specific quality assurance (QA) procedures.

resultsMore than 70 patients were treated using active motion management between the launch of our motion mitigation program in October 2015 and the end date of data collection of this study in January 2018. During acceptance procedures, we found that overall system latency is clinically-suitable for Ph-G. Regarding room usage efficiency, the average number of energy layers delivered per minute was <10 for Ph-G, 10-15 for BH and ≥15 for FB, making Ph-G the slowest treatment modality. When comparing to continuous delivery measured during pretreatment QA procedures, the median values of BH treatment time were extended from 6.6 to 9.3 min (+48%). Ph-G treatments were extended from 7.3 to 13.0 min (+82%).

conclusionsActive motion management has been crucial to the overall success of our SSPT program. Nevertheless, our conservative approach has come with an efficiency cost that is more noticeable in Ph-G treatments and should be considered in decision-making.

Indexed as

MovementPhantoms, ImagingProton TherapyAbdominal NeoplasmsBreath HoldingHumansPrognosisRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRespiratory-Gated Imaging TechniquesRetrospective StudiesSynchrotronsThoracic Neoplasmsbreath-holdingmotion managementphase-gatingproton therapyspot-scanning

Identifiers

PMID30972922
PMCPMC6523004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.