Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34091930›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2021

Characterization of the HollandPTC proton therapy beamline dedicated to uveal melanoma treatment and an interinstitutional comparison.

Emmanuelle Fleury, Petra Trnková, Kees Spruijt, Joël Herault, Franciska Lebbink, Jens Heufelder, Jan Hrbacek, Tomasz Horwacik, Tomasz Kajdrowicz, Andrea Denker and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Quantitative Perfusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Uveal Melanoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors at 9 institutions in 9 countries.

Emmanuelle FleuryDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8614-4624
Petra TrnkováDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Kees SpruijtHolland Proton Therapy Center, Delft, The Netherlands.
Joël HeraultDepartement of Radiation Oncology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France.
Franciska LebbinkHolland Proton Therapy Center, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jens HeufelderHelmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie, Berlin, Germany.
Jan HrbacekPaul Scherrer Institute Center for Proton Therapy, Villigen, Switzerland.
Tomasz HorwacikInstitute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland.
Tomasz KajdrowiczInstitute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland.
Andrea DenkerHelmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie, Berlin, Germany.
Anaïs GerardDepartement of Radiation Oncology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France.
Petter HofverbergDepartement of Radiation Oncology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France.
Maria MamaluiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Roelf SlopsemaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Emory Proton Therapy Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Jean-Philippe PignolDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Mischa HoogemanDepartment of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Proton Therapy Centre · CZCentre Antoine Lacassagne · FRHelmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie · DEInstitute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences · PLDalhousie University · CAEmory Healthcare · USErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLPaul Scherrer Institute · CHUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) 14654Varian Medical Systems (Varian)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEye-dedicated proton therapy (PT) facilities are used to treat malignant intraocular lesions, especially uveal melanoma (UM). The first commercial ocular PT beamline from Varian was installed in the Netherlands. In this work, the conceptual design of the new eyeline is presented. In addition, a comprehensive comparison against five PT centers with dedicated ocular beamlines is performed, and the clinical impact of the identified differences is analyzed. MATERIAL/

methodsThe HollandPTC eyeline was characterized. Four centers in Europe and one in the United States joined the study. All centers use a cyclotron for proton beam generation and an eye-dedicated nozzle. Differences among the chosen ocular beamlines were in the design of the nozzle, nominal energy, and energy spectrum. The following parameters were collected for all centers: technical characteristics and a set of distal, proximal, and lateral region measurements. The measurements were performed with detectors available in-house at each institution. The institutions followed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Report Series (TRS)-398 Code of Practice for absolute dose measurement, and the IAEA TRS-398 Code of Practice, its modified version or International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report No. 78 for spread-out Bragg peak normalization. Energy spreads of the pristine Bragg peaks were obtained with Monte Carlo simulations using Geant4. Seven tumor-specific case scenarios were simulated to evaluate the clinical impact among centers: small, medium, and large UM, located either anteriorly, at the equator, or posteriorly within the eye. Differences in the depth dose distributions were calculated.

resultsA pristine Bragg peak of HollandPTC eyeline corresponded to the constant energy of 75 MeV (maximal range 3.97 g/cm

conclusionsHollandPTC eyeline specifications are in accordance with five other ocular PT beamlines. Similar clinical concepts can be applied to expect the same high local tumor control. Dosimetrical properties among the six institutions induce most likely differences in ocular radiation-related toxicities. This interinstitutional comparison could support further research on ocular post-PT complications. Finally, the findings reported in this study could be used to define dosimetrical guidelines for ocular PT to unify the concepts among institutions.

Indexed as

Proton TherapyUveal NeoplasmsHumansMelanomaMonte Carlo MethodRadiotherapy DosageUveal Melanomaeyelineproton therapyuveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID34091930
PMCPMC8457201
OpenAlexW3169210013

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.