ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Treatment-planning approaches to intensity modulated proton therapy and the impact on dose-weighted linear energy transfer.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic Proton arc therapy for paediatric parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Quantitative analysis of robustness-based versus LET-based optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy for pediatric brain tumors.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Review
- Treatment-planning approaches to intensity modulated proton therapy and the impact on dose-weighted linear energy transfer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe quantified the effect of various forward-based treatment-planning strategies in proton therapy on dose-weighted linear energy transfer (LETd). By maintaining the dosimetric quality at a clinically acceptable level, we aimed to evaluate the differences in LETd among various treatment-planning approaches and their practicality in minimizing biologic uncertainties associated with LETd.
methodEight treatment-planning strategies that are achievable in commercial treatment-planning systems were applied on a cylindrical water phantom and four pediatric brain tumor cases. Each planning strategy was compared to either an opposed lateral plan (phantom study) or original clinical plan (patient study). Deviations in mean and maximum LETd from clinically acceptable dose distributions were compared.
resultsIn the phantom study, using a range shifter and altering the robust scenarios during optimization had the largest effect on the mean clinical target volume LETd, which was reduced from 4.5 to 3.9 keV/μm in both cases. Variations in the intersection angle between beams had the largest effect on LETd in a ring defined 3 to 5 mm outside the target. When beam intersection angles were reduced from opposed laterals (180°) to 120°, 90°, and 60°, corresponding maximum LETd increased from 7.9 to 8.9, 10.9, and 12.2 keV/μm, respectively. A clear trend in mean and maximum LETd variations in the clinical cases could not be established, though spatial distribution of LETd suggested a strong dependence on patient anatomy and treatment geometry.
conclusionChanges in LETd from treatment-plan setup follow intuitive trends in a controlled phantom experiment. Anatomical and other patient-specific considerations, however, can preclude generalizable strategies in clinical cases. For pediatric cranial radiation therapy, we recommend using opposed lateral treatment fields to treat midline targets.
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.