ArticleMedical physics2021
Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: 2026 expert consensus-based practical recommendation of the Korean Liver Cancer Association.Radiation oncology journal · 2026Article
- Stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: 2026 expert consensus-based practical recommendation of the Korean Liver Cancer Association.Journal of liver cancer · 2026Article
- Helium pencil beam commissioning and beam modeling.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Survey data analysis of treatment planning methods in particle therapy facilities.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- An Artificial Intelligence Dose Engine for Fast Carbon Ion Treatment Planning.International journal of particle therapy · 2026Article
- Robustness evaluation of carbon ion radiotherapy for ventricular tachycardia.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of crizotinib as radiosensitizer in sacral chordoma cells: effects of combined carbon ion particle therapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of proton and carbon ion beam models in TReatment Planning for Particles 4D (TRiP4D) referring to a commercial treatment planning system.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- Commissioning of a commercial treatment planning system for scanned carbon-ion radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Technical Note: Improving the workflow in a carbon ion therapy center with custom software for enhanced patient care.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- The rationale for a carbon ion radiation therapy facility in Australia.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Review
- Commissioning of a novel gantry-less proton therapy system.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons.Medical physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis work presents the validation of an analytical pencil beam dose calculation algorithm in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for carbon ions by measurements of dose distributions in heterogeneous phantom geometries. Additionally, a comparison study of carbon ions versus protons is performed considering current best solutions in commercial TPS.
methodsAll treatment plans were optimized and calculated using the RayStation TPS (RaySearch, Sweden). The dose distributions calculated with the TPS were compared with measurements using a 24-pinpoint ionization chamber array (T31015, PTW, Germany). Tissue-like inhomogeneities (bone, lung, and soft tissue) were embedded in water, while a target volume of 4 x 4 x 4 cm
resultsInside the target volume, the mean dose difference between calculations and measurements, averaged over all test cases, was 1.6% for carbon ions. This compares well to the final agreement of 1.5% obtained in water at the commissioning stage of the TPS for carbon ions and is also within the clinically acceptable interval of 3%. The mean dose difference and maximal dose difference obtained outside the target area were 1.8% and 13.4%, respectively. The agreement of dose distributions for carbon ions in the target volumes was comparable or better to that between Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations and measurements for protons. Percentage dose differences of more than 10% were present outside the target area behind bone-lung structures, where the carbon ion calculations systematically over predicted the dose. MC dose calculations for protons were superior to carbon ion beams outside the target volumes.
conclusionThe pencil beam dose calculations for carbon ions in RayStation were found to be in good agreement with dosimetric measurements in heterogeneous geometries for points of interest located within the target. Large local discrepancies behind the target may contribute to incorrect dose predictions for organs at risk.
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.