Trial reportJapanese journal of radiology2024
Comparison of passive-scattered and intensity-modulated proton beam therapy of craniospinal irradiation with proton beams for pediatric and young adult patients with brain tumors.
Trial report in Japanese journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-cancer effects after proton beam therapy for pediatric tumors- a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the dose stability of craniospinal irradiation based on irradiation method of proton beam therapy (PBT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four pediatric and young adult brain tumor patients (age: 1-24 years) were examined. Treatment method was passive-scattered PBT (PSPT) in 8 patients and intensity-modulated PBT (IMPT) in 16 patients. The whole vertebral body (WVB) technique was used in 13 patients whose ages were younger than 10, and vertebral body sparing (VBS) technique was used for the remaining 11 patients aged 10 and above. Dose stability of planning target volume (PTV) against set-up error was investigated.
resultsThe minimum dose (D
conclusionsThe PTV doses of IMPT and PSPT are robust and stable in both anterior-posterior and lateral directions at both C level and L level, but IMPT is more robust and stable than PSPT for cranial-caudal movements. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical Trial Registration number: No. 04-03.
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.