Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34298762›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Quantitative Assessment of 3D Dose Rate for Proton Pencil Beam Scanning FLASH Radiotherapy and Its Application for Lung Hypofractionation Treatment Planning.

Minglei Kang, Shouyi Wei, J Isabelle Choi, Charles B Simone, Haibo Lin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Minglei KangNew York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5054-7587
Shouyi WeiNew York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1162-6255
J Isabelle ChoiNew York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA.
Charles B SimoneNew York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0867-3694
Haibo LinNew York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA.
New York Proton Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To quantitatively assess target and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose rate based on three proposed proton PBS dose rate metrics and study FLASH intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) treatment planning using transmission beams. An in-house FLASH planning platform was developed to optimize transmission (shoot-through) plans for nine consecutive lung cancer patients previously planned with proton SBRT. Dose and dose rate calculation codes were developed to quantify three types of dose rate calculation methods (dose-averaged dose rate (DADR), average dose rate (ADR), and dose-threshold dose rate (DTDR)) based on both phantom and patient treatment plans. Two different minimum MU/spot settings were used to optimize two different dose regimes, 34-Gy in one fraction and 45-Gy in three fractions. The OAR sparing and target coverage can be optimized with good uniformity (hotspot < 110% of prescription dose). ADR, accounting for the spot dwelling and scanning time, gives the lowest dose rate; DTDR, not considering this time but a dose-threshold, gives an intermediate dose rate, whereas DADR gives the highest dose rate without considering any time or dose-threshold. All three dose rates attenuate along the beam direction, and the highest dose rate regions often occur on the field edge for ADR and DTDR, whereas DADR has a better dose rate uniformity. The differences in dose rate metrics have led a large variation for OARs dose rate assessment, posing challenges to FLASH clinical implementation. This is the first attempt to study the impact of the dose rate models, and more investigations and evidence for the details of proton PBS FLASH parameters are needed to explore the correlation between FLASH efficacy and the dose rate metrics.

Indexed as

dose rateFLASH radiotherapylung hypofractionationpencil beam scanningproton therapy

Identifiers

PMID34298762
PMCPMC8303986
OpenAlexW3179678643

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.