ArticleThe British journal of radiology2019
Dosimetric comparison of protons vs photons in re-irradiation of intracranial meningioma.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Charged particle therapy for high-grade gliomas in adults: a systematic review.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Reirradiation of recurrent brain tumors: a review by the ESTRO CNS Focus Group.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Review
- Protons or Photons in Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors-That Is Not the Question.International journal of particle therapy · 2025Article
- Proton Therapy for Intracranial Meningioma for the Treatment of Primary/Recurrent Disease Including Re-Irradiation.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Multimodal therapy of cavernous sinus meningioma: Impact of surgery andNeuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRe-irradiation of recurrent intracranial meningiomas represents a major challenge due to dose limits of critical structures and the necessity of sufficient dose coverage of the recurrent tumor for local control. The aim of this study was to investigate dosimetric differences between pencil beam scanning protons (PBS) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) photons for intracranial re-irradiation of meningiomas.
methodsNine patients who received an initial dose >50 Gy for intracranial meningioma and who were re-irradiated for recurrence were selected for plan comparison. A volumetric modulated arc therapy photon and a pencil beam scanning proton plan were generated (prescription dose: 15 × 3 Gy) based on the targets used in the re-irradiation treatment.
resultsIn all cases, where the cumulative dose exceeded 100 or 90 Gy, these high dose volumes were larger for the proton plans. The integral doses were significantly higher in all photon plans (reduction with protons: 48.6%,
conclusionsThe dosimetric results of the accumulated dose for a re-irradiation with protons and with photons were very similar. The photon plans had a steeper dose falloff directly outside the target and were superior in minimizing the high dose volumes. The proton plans achieved a lower integral dose. Clinically relevant OAR sparing was extremely case specific. The optimal treatment modality should be assessed individually. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Dose sparing in re-irradiation of intracranial meningiomas with protons or photons is highly case specific and the optimal treatment modality needs to be assessed on an individual basis.
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.