ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2021
Beam-Specific Spot Guidance and Optimization for PBS Proton Treatment of Bilateral Head and Neck Cancers.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insights from initial experience for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with proton therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- A component method to delineate surgical spine implants for proton Monte Carlo dose calculation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA multi-field optimization (MFO) technique that uses beam-specific spot placement volumes (SPVs) and spot avoidance volumes (SAVs) is introduced for bilateral head and neck (H&N) cancers. These beam-specific volumes are used to guide the optimizer to consistently achieve optimal organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing with target coverage and plan robustness. MATERIALS AND
methodsImplementation of this technique using a 4-beam, 5-beam, and variant 5-beam arrangement is discussed. The generation of beam-specific SPVs and SAVs derived from target and OARs are shown. The SPVs for select fields are further partitioned into optimization volumes for uniform dose distributions that resemble those of single-field optimization (SFO). A conventional MFO plan that does not use beam-specific spot placement guidance (MFOcon) and an MFO plan that uses only beam-specific SPV (MFOspv) are compared with current technique (MFOspv/sav), using both simulated scenarios and forward-calculated plans on weekly verification computed tomography (VFCT) scans.
resultsDose distribution characteristics of the 4-beam, 5-beam, and variant 5-beam technique are demonstrated with discussion on OAR sparing. When comparing the MFOcon, MFOspv, and MFOspv/sav, the MFOspv/sav is shown to have superior OAR sparing in 9 of the 14 OARs examined. It also shows clinical plan robustness when evaluated by using both simulated uncertainty scenarios and forward-calculated weekly VFCTs throughout the 7-week treatment course.
conclusionThe MFOspv/sav technique is a systematic approach using SPVs and SAVs to guide the optimizer to consistently reach desired OAR dose values and plan robustness.
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.