Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31772966›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2016

Improving Head and Neck Cancer Treatments Using Dynamic Collimation in Spot Scanning Proton Therapy.

Alexandra Moignier, Edgar Gelover, Dongxu Wang, Blake Smith, Ryan Flynn, Maura Kirk, Liyong Lin, Timothy Solberg, Alexander Lin, Daniel Hyer

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of particle therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra MoignierDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Edgar GeloverDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Dongxu WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Blake SmithDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Ryan FlynnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Maura KirkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Liyong LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Timothy SolbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Daniel HyerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInterest in using collimation for spot scanning proton therapy has recently increased in an attempt to improve the lateral penumbra. To investigate the advantages of such an approach for complex targets, a plan comparison between uncollimated and collimated beam spots was performed for patients with head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND

methodsFor 10 patients with head and neck cancer, previously treated with spot scanning proton therapy, uncollimated and collimated treatment plans were created using an in-house treatment-planning system capable of modeling asymmetric-beamlet dose distributions resulting from the use of a dynamic collimation system. Both uncollimated and collimated plans reproduced clinically delivered plans in terms of target coverage. A relative plan comparison was performed using both physical and radiobiological metrics on the organs at risk.

resultsThe dynamic collimation system improved dose-distribution conformity while preserving target coverage. The median reduction of the mean dose to the esophagus, uninvolved larynx, and uninvolved parotids were -11.9% (minimum to maximum, -6.4% to -24.1%), -7.2% (-0.8% to -60.1%), and -5.2% (-0.2% to -21.5%), respectively, and depended on the organ location relative to the target and radiation beam angle. The collimation did not improve dose to some organs at risk surrounded by the target or located upstream of Bragg peaks because of the priority on the target coverage.

conclusionIn spot scanning proton therapy, the dynamic collimation system generally affords better target conformity, which results in improvement in organ-at-risk sparing in the head and neck region while preserving target coverage. However, the benefits of collimation and the increased complexity should be considered for each patient. Patients with large bilateral targets or organs at risk surrounded by the target showed the least benefit.

Indexed as

collimationhead and neckspot scanning proton therapy

Identifiers

PMID31772966
PMCPMC6871640
OpenAlexW2280232957

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.