ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022
A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Norwegian consensus guidelines for selection of neuro-oncology patients to proton therapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Beyond local control: radiotherapy-immunotherapy combinations fromFrontiers in genetics · 2026Review
- Advancing proton therapy together: insights on practice, technology, and implementation.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Protons or Photons in Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors-That Is Not the Question.International journal of particle therapy · 2025Article
- Proton Therapy in The Treatment of Head And Neck Cancers- Review.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- Reirradiation - still navigating uncharted waters?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Review
- Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Head and Neck Cancer Care: Optimizing Oral Health Management for Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- More than Five Decades of Proton Therapy: A Bibliometric Overview of the Scientific Literature.Cancers · 2023Article
- Patients' needs in proton therapy: A survey among ten European facilities.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Review
- A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Outcomes and Toxicities of Nonmedullary Thyroid Tumors Treated with Proton Beam Radiation Therapy.International journal of particle therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to explore various national and international clinical decision-making tools and dose comparison methods used for selecting cancer patients for proton versus X-ray radiation therapy. To address this aim, a literature search using defined scoping review methods was performed in Medline and Embase databases as well as grey literature. Articles published between 1 January 2015 and 4 August 2020 and those that clearly stated methods of proton versus X-ray therapy patient selection and those published in English were eligible for inclusion. In total, 321 studies were identified of which 49 articles met the study's inclusion criteria representing 13 countries. Six different clinical decision-making tools and 14 dose comparison methods were identified, demonstrating variability within countries and internationally. Proton therapy was indicated for all paediatric patients except those with lymphoma and re-irradiation where individualised model-based selection was required. The most commonly reported patient selection tools included the Normal Tissue Complication Probability model, followed by cost-effectiveness modelling and dosimetry comparison. Model-based selection methods were most commonly applied for head and neck clinical indications in adult cohorts (48% of studies). While no 'Gold Standard' currently exists for proton therapy patient selection with variations evidenced globally, some of the patient selection methods identified in this review can be used to inform future practice in Australia. As literature was not identified from all countries where proton therapy centres are available, further research is needed to evaluate patient selection methods in these jurisdictions for a comprehensive overview.
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.