ReviewRadiological physics and technology2023
Creation, evolution, and future challenges of ion beam therapy from a medical physicist's viewpoint (Part 2). Chapter 2. Biophysical model, treatment planning system and image guided radiotherapy.
Review in Radiological physics and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creation, evolution, and future challenges of ion beam therapy from a medical physicist's viewpoint (Part 3): Chapter 3. Clinical research, Chapter 4. Future challenges, Chapter 5. Discussion, and Conclusion.Radiological physics and technology · 2023Review
- Biomedical advances and future prospects of high-precision three-dimensional radiotherapy and four-dimensional radiotherapy.Proceedings of the Japan Academy. Series B, Physical and biological sciences · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When an ion beam penetrates deeply into the body, its kinetic energy decreases, and its biological effect increases due to the change of the beam quality. To give a uniform biological effect to the target, it is necessary to reduce the absorbed dose with the depth. A bio-physical model estimating the relationship between ion beam quality and biological effect is necessary to determine the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of the ion beam that changes with depth. For this reason, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) and GSI have each developed their own model at the starting of the ion beam therapy. Also, NIRS developed a new model at the starting of the scanning irradiation. Although the Local Effect Model (LEM) at the GSI and the modified Microdosimetric Kinetic Model (MKM) at the NIRS, the both are currently used, can similarly predict radiation quality-induced changes in surviving fraction of cultured cell, the clinical RBE-weighted doses for the same absorbed dose are different. This is because the LEM uses X-rays as a reference for clinical RBE, whereas the modified MKM uses carbon ion beam as a reference and multiplies it by a clinical factor of 2.41. Therefore, both are converted through the absorbed dose. In PART 2, I will describe the development of such a bio-physical model, as well as the birth and evolution of a treatment planning system and image guided radiotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37129777What 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.