ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020
Benchmarking a commercial proton therapy solution: The Paul Scherrer Institut experience.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation study using the spots deletion technique in spot scanning proton beam therapy for prostate cancers.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Dose distribution effects of spot-scanning proton beam therapy equipped with a multi-leaf collimator for pediatric brain tumors.Oncology letters · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFor the past 20 years, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) has treated more than 1500 patients with deep-seated tumors using PSI-Plan, an in-house developed treatment planning system (TPS) used for proton beam scanning proton therapy, in combination with its home-built gantries. The goal of the present work is to benchmark the performance of a new TPS/Gantry system for proton therapy centers which have established already a baseline standard of care. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 31 cases (=52 plans) distributed around 7 anatomical sites and 12 indications were randomly selected and re-planned using Eclipse™. The resulting plans were compared with plans formerly optimized in PSI-Plan, in terms of target coverage, plan quality, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing and number of delivered pencil beams.
resultsOur results show an improvement on target coverage and homogeneity when using Eclipse™ while PSI-Plan showed superior plan conformity. As for OAR sparing, both TPS achieved the clinical constraints. The number of pencil beams required per plan was on average 3.4 times higher for PSI-Plan.
conclusionBoth systems showed a good capacity to produce satisfactory plans, with Eclipse™ being able to achieve better target coverage and plan homogeneity without compromising OARs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A benchmark between a clinically tested and validated system with a commercial solution is of interest for emerging proton therapy, equipped with commercial systems and no previous experience with proton beam scanning.
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.