ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2021
NRG Oncology Survey of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Use in US Proton Therapy Centers.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- NRG Oncology White Paper on the Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Review
- NRG Oncology and Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group Patterns of Practice Survey and Consensus Recommendations on Pencil-Beam Scanning Proton Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Thoracic Malignancies.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024Review
- The Status and Challenges for Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Treatments in United States Proton Therapy Centers: An NRG Oncology Practice Survey.International journal of particle therapy · 2024Article
- Advances and Challenges in Conducting Clinical Trials With Proton Beam Therapy.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2023Review
- Proton stereotactic body radiation therapy as a new treatment regimen: Technical development and limitation with initial clinical experience.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2023Article
- A component method to delineate surgical spine implants for proton Monte Carlo dose calculation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Advances in treatment planning and management for the safety and accuracy of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy using proton pencil beam scanning: Simulation, planning, quality assurance, and delivery recommendations.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2023Article
- Dual-energy CT based mass density and relative stopping power estimation for proton therapy using physics-informed deep learning.Physics in medicine and biology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PURPOSE/
objectivesMonte Carlo (MC) dose calculation has appeared in primary commercial treatment-planning systems and various in-house platforms. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques complement MC capabilities. However, no publications have yet reported how proton therapy centers implement these new technologies, and a national survey is required to determine the feasibility of including MC and companion techniques in cooperative group clinical trials. MATERIALS/
methodsA 9-question survey was designed to query key clinical parameters: scope of MC utilization, validation methods for heterogeneities, clinical site-specific imaging guidance, proton range uncertainties, and how implants are handled. A national survey was distributed to all 29 operational US proton therapy centers on 13 May 2019.
resultsWe received responses from 25 centers (86% participation). Commercial MC was most commonly used for primary plan optimization (16 centers) or primary dose evaluation (18 centers), while in-house MC was used more frequently for secondary dose evaluation (7 centers). Based on the survey, MC was used infrequently for gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology and extremity compared with other more heterogeneous disease sites (
conclusionThe use of MC for primary dose calculation and optimization was prevalent and, therefore, likely feasible for clinical trials. There was consensus to use MAR and override tissues surrounding metals but no consensus about how to use DECT and MAR for human tissues and implants. Development and standardization of these advanced technologies are strongly encouraged for vendors and clinical physicists.
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.