Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31882690›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

In Silico Models of DNA Damage and Repair in Proton Treatment Planning: A Proof of Concept.

Edward A K Smith, N T Henthorn, J W Warmenhoven, S P Ingram, A H Aitkenhead, J C Richardson, P Sitch, A L Chadwick, T S A Underwood, M J Merchant and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors.

Edward A K SmithDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. edward.smith-4@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0598-1026
N T HenthornDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9670-7638
J W WarmenhovenDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
S P IngramDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1786-349X
A H AitkenheadDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
J C RichardsonChristie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
P SitchChristie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
A L ChadwickDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7841-0507
T S A UnderwoodDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
M J MerchantDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
N G BurnetDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
N F KirkbyDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
K J KirkbyDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
R I MackayDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is strong in vitro cell survival evidence that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons is variable, with dependence on factors such as linear energy transfer (LET) and dose. This is coupled with the growing in vivo evidence, from post-treatment image change analysis, of a variable RBE. Despite this, a constant RBE of 1.1 is still applied as a standard in proton therapy. However, there is a building clinical interest in incorporating a variable RBE. Recently, correlations summarising Monte Carlo-based mechanistic models of DNA damage and repair with absorbed dose and LET have been published as the Manchester mechanistic (MM) model. These correlations offer an alternative path to variable RBE compared to the more standard phenomenological models. In this proof of concept work, these correlations have been extended to acquire RBE-weighted dose distributions and calculated, along with other RBE models, on a treatment plan. The phenomenological and mechanistic models for RBE have been shown to produce comparable results with some differences in magnitude and relative distribution. The mechanistic model found a large RBE for misrepair, which phenomenological models are unable to do. The potential of the MM model to predict multiple endpoints presents a clear advantage over phenomenological models.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsDNA DamageDNA RepairFemaleHumansLinear Energy TransferMonte Carlo MethodYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31882690
PMCPMC6934522

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.