Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34476905›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022

A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy.

Nicole Zientara, Eileen Giles, Hien Le, Michala Short

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Advancing proton therapy together: insights on practice, technology, and implementation.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Reirradiation - still navigating uncharted waters?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Patients' needs in proton therapy: A survey among ten European facilities.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022
    Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicole ZientaraUniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5922-471X
Eileen GilesUniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1385-422X
Hien LeUniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1527-5889
Michala ShortUniSA Cancer Research Institute, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2249-3419
University of South Australia · AURoyal Adelaide Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NeoplasmsProton TherapyAdultChildCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPatient SelectionProbabilityClinical decision-makingdecision support techniquespatient selectionproton therapyradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID34476905
PMCPMC8892419
OpenAlexW3198025521

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.