ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
The Organ Sparing Potential of Different Biological Optimization Strategies in Proton Therapy.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic Proton arc therapy for paediatric parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Review
- Potential Therapeutic Improvements in Prostate Cancer Treatment Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy with LETCancers · 2024Article
- Review
- Long-term outcomes of fractionated proton beam therapy for benign or radiographic intracranial meningioma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Influence of beam pruning techniques on LET and RBE in proton arc therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Comparing biological effectiveness guided plan optimization strategies for cranial proton therapy: potential and challenges.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVariable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) models allow for differences in linear energy transfer (LET), physical dose, and tissue type to be accounted for when quantifying and optimizing the biological damage of protons. These models are complex and fraught with uncertainties, and therefore, simpler RBE optimization strategies have also been suggested. Our aim was to compare several biological optimization strategies for proton therapy by evaluating their performance in different clinical cases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two different optimization strategies were compared: full variable RBE optimization and differential RBE optimization, which involve applying fixed RBE for the planning target volume (PTV) and variable RBE in organs at risk (OARs). The optimization strategies were coupled to 2 variable RBE models and 1 LET-weighted dose model, with performance demonstrated on 3 different clinical cases: brain, head and neck, and prostate tumors.
resultsIn cases with low
conclusionsDifferences between the optimization strategies varied across the studied cases, influenced by both biological and physical parameters. Whereas full RBE optimization showed greater OAR sparing, awareness of underdosage to the target must be carefully considered.
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.