ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Radiobiological and dosimetric impact of RayStation pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy breast cancer plans.
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 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.
- Generalizability of deep learning-based dose conversion model in proton beam therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Enhancing dose conformity in head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy using a novel dynamic multi-leaf collimator strategy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Beam commissioning of a new compact scanned proton therapy system with four different dose calculation algorithms.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Investigation of factors related to treatment planning of x-ray SBRT and scanning carbon-ion radiation therapy for early-stage lung cancer patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the availability of single-position treatment with a rotating gantry and the validity of deformable image registration dose assessment for pancreatic cancer carbon-ion radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Impact of Dose Calculation Algorithms and Radiobiological Parameters on Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Complications in Left Breast Radiation Therapy.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2024Article
- Particle Therapy: Clinical Applications and Biological Effects.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Investigating volumetric repainting to mitigate interplay effect on 4D robustly optimized lung cancer plans in pencil beam scanning proton therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Parametrization of in-air spot size as a function of energy and air gap for the ProteusPLUS pencil beam scanning proton therapy system.Radiological physics and technology · 2020Article
- Dosimetric Comparison of Helical Tomotherapy, Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy, and Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Angiosarcoma of the Scalp.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- Optimization of the Dose-Volume Effect Parameter "a" in EUD-Based TCP Models for Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRayStation treatment planning system employs pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for proton dose calculations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the radiobiological and dosimetric impact of RayStation PB and MC algorithms on the intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) breast plans.
methodsThe current study included ten breast cancer patients, and each patient was treated with 1-2 proton beams to the whole breast/chestwall (CW) and regional lymph nodes in 28 fractions for a total dose of 50.4 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE). A total clinical target volume (CTV_Total) was generated by combining individual CTVs: AxI, AxII, AxIII, CW, IMN, and SCVN. All beams in the study were treated with a range shifter (7.5 cm water equivalent thickness). For each patient, three sets of plans were generated: (a) PB optimization followed by PB dose calculation (PB-PB), (b) PB optimization followed by MC dose calculation (PB-MC), and (c) MC optimization followed by MC dose calculation (MC-MC). For a given patient, each plan was robustly optimized on the CTVs with same parameters and objectives. Treatment plans were evaluated using dosimetric and radiobiological indices (equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)).
resultsThe results are averaged over ten breast cancer patients. In comparison to PB-PB plans, PB-MC plans showed a reduction in CTV target dose by 5.3% for D
conclusionIf MC is more accurate than PB as reported in the literature, dosimetric and radiobiological results from the current study suggest that PB overestimates the target dose, EUD, and TCP for IMPT breast cancer treatment. The overestimation of dosimetric and radiobiological results of the target volume by PB needs to be further interpreted in terms of clinical outcome.
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.