ArticleCancers2023
Comparing Predicted Toxicities between Hypofractionated Proton and Photon Radiotherapy of Liver Cancer Patients with Different Adaptive Schemes.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Daily image-guided carbon ion stereotactic radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma: paving the way for MR-guided online adaptive treatment.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Potential of isotoxic dose escalation with robustly optimized VMAT and IMPT for large hepatocellular carcinoma according to baseline liver function.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Comparison of gantry-less magnetic resonance guided proton therapy with photon therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Prospective planning comparison of magnetic resonance-guided vs. internal target volume-based stereotactic body radiotherapy of hepatic metastases - Which patients do really benefit from an MR-linac?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
With the availability of MRI linacs, online adaptive intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has become a treatment option for liver cancer patients, often combined with hypofractionation. Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) has the potential to reduce the dose to healthy tissue, but it is particularly sensitive to changes in the beam path and might therefore benefit from online adaptation. This study compares the normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) for liver and duodenal toxicity for adaptive and non-adaptive IMRT and IMPT treatments of liver cancer patients. Adaptive and non-adaptive IMRT and IMPT plans were optimized to 50 Gy (RBE = 1.1 for IMPT) in five fractions for 10 liver cancer patients, using the original MRI linac images and physician-drawn structures. Three liver NTCP models were used to predict radiation-induced liver disease, an increase in albumin-bilirubin level, and a Child-Pugh score increase of more than 2. Additionally, three duodenal NTCP models were used to predict gastric bleeding, gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity with grades >3, and duodenal toxicity grades 2-4. NTCPs were calculated for adaptive and non-adaptive IMRT and IMPT treatments. In general, IMRT showed higher NTCP values than IMPT and the differences were often significant. However, the differences between adaptive and non-adaptive treatment schemes were not significant, indicating that the NTCP benefit of adaptive treatment regimens is expected to be smaller than the expected difference between IMRT and IMPT.
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.