ArticleArXiv2024
Using Modularized Pin Ridge Filter in Proton FLASH Planning for Liver Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We previously developed a FLASH planning framework for streamlined pin-ridge-filter (pin-RF) design, demonstrating its feasibility for single-energy proton FLASH planning. In this study, we refined the pin-RF design for easy assembly using reusable modules, focusing on its application in liver SABR. This framework generates an intermediate IMPT plan and translates it into step widths and thicknesses of pin-RFs for a single-energy FLASH plan. Parameters like energy spacing, monitor unit limit, and spot quantity were adjusted during IMPT planning, resulting in pin-RFs assembled using predefined modules with widths from 1 to 6 mm, each with a WET of 5 mm. This approach was validated on three liver SABR cases. FLASH doses, quantified using the FLASH effectiveness model at 1 to 5 Gy thresholds, were compared to conventional IMPT (IMPT-CONV) doses to assess clinical benefits. The highest demand for 6 mm width modules, moderate for 2-4 mm, and minimal for 1- and 5-mm modules were shown across all cases. At lower dose thresholds, the two-beam case showed significant dose reductions (>23%), while the other two three-beam cases showed moderate reductions (up to 14.7%), indicating the need for higher fractional beam doses for an enhanced FLASH effect. Positive clinical benefits were seen only in the two-beam case at the 5 Gy threshold. At the 1 Gy threshold, the FLASH plan of the two-beam case outperformed its IMPT-CONV plan, reducing dose indicators by up to 28.3%. However, the three-beam cases showed negative clinical benefits at the 1 Gy threshold, with some dose indicators increasing by up to 16% due to lower fractional beam doses and closer beam arrangements. This study evaluated the feasibility of modularizing streamlined pin-RFs in single-energy proton FLASH planning for liver SABR, offering guidance on optimal module composition and strategies to enhance FLASH planning.
Identifiers
38883238PMC11177950What 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.