ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2024
Dosimetric Evaluation of Target Motion Effects in Spot-Scanning Proton Therapy: A Phantom Study.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical implementation of intensity modulated proton therapy in breath-hold for mediastinal lymphoma patients using surface monitoring and nasal high-flow therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Imaging lung tumor motion using integrated-mode proton radiography-A phantom study towards tumor tracking in proton radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Proton therapy achieves high-dose tumor control with organ preservation in complex metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma: a case report of a refractory patient with 16 pulmonary metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate intrafractional motion effects as a function of peak-to-peak motion and period during single-field, single-fraction and single-field, multifraction irradiation of the moving target in spot-scanning proton therapy. Materials and Methods: An in-house dynamic phantom was used to simulate peak-to-peak motion of 5, 10, and 20 mm with periods of 2, 4, and 8 seconds. The dose distribution in the moving target was measured using radiochromic films. During the perpendicular motion, the film was fixed and moved perpendicular to the beam direction without changing the water equivalent thickness (WET). During longitudinal motion, the film was fixed and moved along the beam direction, causing a change in WET. Gamma index analysis was used with criteria of 3%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm to analyze the dose distributions. Results: For single-fraction irradiation, varying the period did not result in a significant difference in any of the metrics used ( Conclusion: The implementation of multifraction irradiation allowed to reduce hot and cold spots but did not reduce dose blurring. The motion threshold varied from 7 to 11 mm and depended on the number of fractions, the type of motion, the acceptance criteria, and the calculation method used.
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.