Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31765436›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Proton pencil minibeam irradiation of an in-vivo mouse ear model spares healthy tissue dependent on beam size.

Matthias Sammer, Esther Zahnbrecher, Sophie Dobiasch, Stefanie Girst, Christoph Greubel, Katarina Ilicic, Judith Reindl, Benjamin Schwarz, Christian Siebenwirth, Dietrich W M Walsh and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Proton minibeam radiotherapy: a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. High-LET charged particles: radiobiology and application for new approaches in radiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthias SammerInstitut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4017-3603
Esther ZahnbrecherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Sophie DobiaschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Stefanie GirstInstitut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Christoph GreubelInstitut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Katarina IlicicDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Judith ReindlInstitut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Benjamin SchwarzInstitut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Christian SiebenwirthInstitut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Dietrich W M WalshInstitut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Stephanie E CombsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Günther DollingerInstitut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Thomas E SchmidDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8894-8087
TUM Klinikum · DEUniversität der Bundeswehr München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proton radiotherapy using minibeams of sub-millimeter dimensions reduces side effects in comparison to conventional proton therapy due to spatial fractionation. Since the proton minibeams widen with depth, the homogeneous irradiation of a tumor can be ensured by adjusting the beam distances to tumor size and depth to maintain tumor control as in conventional proton therapy. The inherent advantages of protons in comparison to photons like a limited range that prevents a dosage of distal tissues are maintained by proton minibeams and can even be exploited for interlacing from different beam directions. A first animal study was conducted to systematically investigate and quantify the tissue-sparing effects of proton pencil minibeams as a function of beam size and dose distributions, using beam widths between σ = 95, 199, 306, 411, 561 and 883 μm (standard deviation) at a defined center-to-center beam distance (ctc) of 1.8 mm. The average dose of 60 Gy was distributed in 4x4 minibeams using 20 MeV protons (LET ~ 2.7 keV/μm). The induced radiation toxicities were measured by visible skin reactions and ear swelling for 90 days after irradiation. The largest applied beam size to ctc ratio (σ/ctc = 0.49) is similar to a homogeneous irradiation and leads to a significant 3-fold ear thickness increase compared to the control group. Erythema and desquamation was also increased significantly 3-4 weeks after irradiation. With decreasing beam sizes and thus decreasing σ/ctc, the maximum skin reactions are strongly reduced until no ear swelling or other visible skin reactions should occur for σ/ctc < 0.032 (extrapolated from data). These results demonstrate that proton pencil minibeam radiotherapy has better tissue-sparing for smaller σ/ctc, corresponding to larger peak-to-valley dose ratios PVDR, with the best effect for σ/ctc < 0.032. However, even quite large σ/ctc (e.g. σ/ctc = 0.23 or 0.31, i.e. PVDR = 10 or 2.7) show less acute side effects than a homogeneous dose distribution. This suggests that proton minibeam therapy spares healthy tissue not only in the skin but even for dose distributions appearing in deeper layers close to the tumor enhancing its benefits for clinical proton therapy.

Indexed as

Organ Sparing TreatmentsProtonsAnimalsCell SurvivalClone CellsDose-Response Relationship, RadiationEarKeratinocytesMice, Inbred BALB CSkinProtons

Identifiers

PMID31765436
PMCPMC6876838
OpenAlexW2991051023

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.