ArticleJournal of radiation research2023
Comparison of dosimetries of carbon-ion pencil beam scanning, proton pencil beam scanning and volumetric modulated arc therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Carbon-ions, protons or photons for head and neck cancer radiotherapy-an in silico planning study.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Proton beam reirradiation for locally recurrent rectal cancer patients with prior pelvic irradiation.Journal of radiation research · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the dose distributions of carbon-ion pencil beam scanning (C-PBS), proton pencil beam scanning (P-PBS) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) for locally recurrent rectal cancer. The C-PBS treatment planning computed tomography (CT) data sets of 10 locally recurrent rectal cancer cases were randomly selected. Three treatment plans were created using identical prescribed doses. The beam angles for C-PBS and P-PBS were identical. Dosimetry, including the dose received by 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) (D95%), dose to the 2 cc receiving the maximum dose (D2cc), organ at risk (OAR) volume receiving > 15Gy (V15) and > 30Gy (V30), was evaluated. Statistical significance was assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Mean PTV-D95% values were > 95% of the volume for P-PBS and C-PBS, whereas that for VMAT was 94.3%. However, PTV-D95% values in P-PBS and VMAT were < 95% in five and two cases, respectively, due to the OAR dose reduction. V30 and V15 to the rectum/intestine for C-PBS (V30 = 4.2 ± 3.2 cc, V15 = 13.8 ± 10.6 cc) and P-PBS (V30 = 7.3 ± 5.6 cc, V15 = 21.3 ± 13.5 cc) were significantly lower than those for VMAT (V30 = 17.1 ± 10.6 cc, V15 = 55.2 ± 28.6 cc). Bladder-V30 values with P-PBS/C-PBS (3.9 ± 4.8 Gy(RBE)/3.0 ± 4.0 Gy(RBE)) were significantly lower than those with VMAT (7.9 ± 8.1 Gy). C-PBS provided superior dose conformation and lower OAR doses compared with P-PBS and VMAT. C-PBS may be the best choice for cases in which VMAT and P-PBS cannot satisfy dose constraints. C-PBS could be another choice for cases in which VMAT and P-PBS cannot satisfy dose constraints, thereby avoiding surgical resection.
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.