ArticleCancers2023
Daily Head and Neck Treatment Assessment for Optimal Proton Therapy Planning Robustness.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Beyond Couch Correction in Head and Neck Radiotherapy: A Narrative Review of Action-Oriented Positioning Management.Cancers · 2026Review
- Insights from initial experience for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with proton therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical advantages of incorporating predicted weekly anatomy in IMPT optimization with reduced setup error.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robust optimization in proton therapy ensures adequate target coverage; however, validation of fractional plan quality and setup uncertainty in patients has not been performed. We aimed to assess plan robustness on delivered head and neck proton plans classified into two categories: (1) primary only (PO) and (2) primary and neck nodal (PNN) coverage. Registration at the machine was utilized for daily CBCT to generate a synthetic CT. The dose for the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OAR) was compared to the expected robustness bands using 3.5% range uncertainty and 3 mm vs. 5 mm setup uncertainty. The fractional deviation was defined as D95% and V100% outside of uncertainty constraints. About 203 daily fractions from 6 patients were included for analysis. The percentage of fractions that exceeded robustness calculations was greater in 3 mm as compared to 5 mm setup uncertainty for both CTV and OAR volumes. PO plans had clinically insignificant average fractional deviation, less than 1%, in delivered D95% and V100%. In comparison, PNN plans had up to 2.2% average fractional deviation in delivered V100% using 3 mm robustness. Given the need to balance dose accuracy with OAR sparing, we recommend the utilization of 3 mm setup uncertainty as an acceptable simulation of the dose delivered.
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.