Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711432›Full record

ArticleArXiv2024

Simultaneous Reduction of Number of Spots and Energy Layers in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Rapid Spot Scanning Delivery.

Anqi Fu, Vicki T Taasti, Masoud Zarepisheh

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anqi Fu
Vicki T Taasti
Masoud Zarepisheh

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reducing proton treatment time improves patient comfort and decreases the risk of error from intra-fractional motion, but must be balanced against clinical goals and treatment plan quality. We formulated the proton treatment planning problem as a convex optimization problem with a cost function consisting of a dosimetric plan quality term plus a weighted $l_1$ regularization term. We iteratively solved this problem and adaptively updated the regularization weights to promote the sparsity of both the spots and energy layers. The proposed algorithm was tested on four head-and-neck cancer patients, and its performance was compared with existing standard $l_1$ and group $l_2$ regularization methods. We also compared the effectiveness of the three methods ($l_1$, group $l_2$, and reweighted $l_1$) at improving plan delivery efficiency without compromising dosimetric plan quality by constructing each of their Pareto surfaces charting the trade-off between plan delivery and plan quality. The reweighted $l_1$ regularization method reduced the number of spots and energy layers by an average over all patients of 40% and 35%, respectively, with an insignificant cost to dosimetric plan quality. From the Pareto surfaces, it is clear that reweighted $l_1$ provided a better trade-off between plan delivery efficiency and dosimetric plan quality than standard $l_1$ or group $l_2$ regularization, requiring the lowest cost to quality to achieve any given level of delivery efficiency. In summary, reweighted $l_1$ regularization is a powerful method for simultaneously promoting the sparsity of spots and energy layers at a small cost to dosimetric plan quality. This sparsity reduces the time required for spot scanning and energy layer switching, thereby improving the delivery efficiency of proton plans.

Identifiers

PMID38711432
PMCPMC11071611

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.