ArticleCancers2023
Selecting Optimal Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Plan Parameters to Reduce Dose Discrepancy between Discrete Spot Plan and Continuous Scanning: A Proof-of-Concept Study.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vision and implementation for the first U.S. carbon ion therapy center part II: Design philosophy and clinical implementation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Review
- A prospective risk analysis for the clinical commissioning of a dose-driven continuous scanning proton therapy system.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Dosimetric evaluation and clinical application of collimated apertures with proton beam line scanning in stereotactic radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Optimal minimum MU for intensity-modulated proton therapy with pencil-beam scanning proton beams.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pencil beam scanning delivered with continuous scanning has several advantages over conventional discrete spot scanning. Such advantages include improved beam delivery efficiency and reduced beam delivery time. However, a move dose is delivered between consecutive spots with continuous scanning, and current treatment planning systems do not take this into account. Therefore, continuous scanning and discrete spot plans have an inherent dose discrepancy. Using the operating parameters of the state-of-the-art particle therapy system, we conducted a proof-of-concept study in which we systematically generated 28 plans for cubic targets with different combinations of plan parameters and simulated the dose discrepancies between continuous scanning and a planned one. A nomograph to guide the selection of plan parameters was developed to reduce the dose discrepancy. The effectiveness of the nomograph was evaluated with two clinical cases (one prostate and one liver). Plans with parameters guided by the nomograph decreased dose discrepancy than those used standard plan parameters. Specifically, the 2%/2 mm gamma passing rate increased from 96.3% to 100% for the prostate case and from 97.8% to 99.7% for the liver case. The CTV DVH root mean square error decreased from 2.2% to 0.2% for the prostate case and from 1.8% to 0.9% for the liver case. The decreased dose discrepancy may allow the relaxing of the delivery constraint for some cases, leading to greater benefits in continuous scanning. Further investigation is warranted.
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.