ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020
Quantification of plan robustness against different uncertainty sources for classical and anatomical robust optimized treatment plans in head and neck cancer proton therapy.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Triggered plan adaptation using multi-image optimization for improved robustness in head-and-neck cancer proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Dosimetric analysis of six whole-breast irradiation techniques in supine and prone positions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Pre-treatment analysis of non-rigid variations can assist robust intensity-modulated proton therapy plan selection for head and neck patients.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Anatomic changes in head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy: Comparison between robust optimization and online adaptation.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2021Article
- Proton therapy special feature: introductory editorial.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClassical robust optimization (cRO) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) considers isocenter position and particle range uncertainties; anatomical robust optimization (aRO) aims to consider additional non-rigid positioning variations. This work compares the influence of different uncertainty sources on the robustness of cRO and aRO IMPT plans for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
methodsTwo IMPT plans were optimized for 20 HNSCC patients who received weekly control CTs (cCT): cRO, using solely the planning CT, and aRO, including 2 additional cCTs. The robustness of the plans in terms of clinical target volume (CTV) coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing was analyzed considering stepwise the influence of (1) non-rigid anatomical variations given by the weekly cCT, (2) with fraction-wise added rigid random setup errors and (3) additional systematic proton range uncertainties.
resultscRO plans presented significantly higher nominal CTV coverage but are outperformed by aRO plans when considering non-rigid anatomical variations only, as cRO and aRO plans presented a median target coverage (
conclusionNon-rigid anatomical variations are mainly responsible for critical target coverage loss of cRO plans, whereas the aRO approach was robust against such variations. Both plans provide similar robustness of OAR parameters. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The influence of different uncertainty sources was quantified for robust IMPT HNSCC plans.
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.