ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2023
Dosimetric impact of adaptive proton therapy in head and neck cancer - A review.
Review in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Daily image-guided carbon ion stereotactic radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma: paving the way for MR-guided online adaptive treatment.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Offline Plan Adaptation in Robustly Optimized CBCT-Guided Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Beam Therapy: Lessons From a Real-World Cohort.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Retrospective analysis of adaptation frequencies and factors in offline in offline adaptive proton therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Impact of reduced robustness settings on the necessity for proton therapy treatment plan adaptation in head-and-neck cancer patients.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Defining a Quantitative Threshold for Adaptive Re-planning using a Percentile-based Scoring System.International journal of particle therapy · 2026Article
- Validation of fully automated intensity-modulated proton therapy with and without transmission beams for nasopharyngeal cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Interfractional body surface monitoring using daily cone-beam computed tomography imaging for pediatric adaptive proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Parotid preservation or immune protection? The dual dilemma in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Article
- A retrospective study on the investigation of potential dosimetric benefits of online adaptive proton therapy for head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- CBCT-Based Dose Monitoring and Adaptive Planning Triggers in Head and Neck PBS Proton Therapy.Cancers · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) is susceptible to anatomical changes and patient set-up inaccuracies during the radiotherapy course, which can cause discrepancies between planned and delivered dose. The discrepancies can be counteracted by adaptive replanning strategies. This article reviews the observed dosimetric impact of adaptive proton therapy (APT) and the timing to perform a plan adaptation in IMPT in HNC. Methods: A literature search of articles published in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from January 2010 to March 2022 was performed. Among a total of 59 records assessed for possible eligibility, ten articles were included in this review. Results: Included studies reported on target coverage deterioration in IMPT plans during the RT course, which was recovered with the application of an APT approach. All APT plans showed an average improved target coverage for the high- and low-dose targets as compared to the accumulated dose on the planned plans. Dose improvements up to 2.5 Gy (3.5 %) and up to 4.0 Gy (7.1 %) in the D98 of the high- and low dose targets were observed with APT. Doses to the organs at risk (OARs) remained equal or decreased slightly after APT was applied. In the included studies, APT was largely performed once, which resulted in the largest target coverage improvement, but eventual additional APT improved the target coverage further. There is no data showing what is the most appropriate timing for APT. Conclusion: APT during IMPT for HNC patients improves target coverage. The largest improvement in target coverage was found with a single adaptive intervention, and an eventual second or more frequent APT application improved the target coverage further. Doses to the OARs remained equal or decreased slightly after applying APT. The most optimal timing for APT is yet to be determined.
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.