Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37509380›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Daily Head and Neck Treatment Assessment for Optimal Proton Therapy Planning Robustness.

Leslie Chang, Sherif G Shaaban, Emile Gogineni, Brandi Page, Harry Quon, Heng Li, Rachel Ger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Insights from initial experience for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with proton therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Leslie ChangDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Sherif G ShaabanDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Emile GogineniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6222-311X
Brandi PageDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Harry QuonDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Heng LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.
Rachel GerDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

head and neck cancerparticle radiotherapyprotonquality assurancerobustness optimization

Identifiers

PMID37509380
PMCPMC10378634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.