ArticleCancers2024
Beam Position Projection Algorithms in Proton Pencil Beam Scanning.
Article in Cancers, 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
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
Beam position uncertainties along the beam trajectory arise from the accelerator, beamline, and scanning magnets (SMs). They can be monitored in real time, e.g., through strip ionization chambers (ICs), and treatments can be paused if needed. Delivery is more reliable and accurate if the beam position is projected from monitored nozzle parameters to the isocenter, allowing for accurate online corrections to be performed. Beam position projection algorithms are also used in post-delivery log file analyses. In this paper, we investigate the four potential algorithms that can be applied to all pencil beam scanning (PBS) nozzles. For some combinations of nozzle configurations and algorithms, however, the projection uses beam properties determined offline (e.g., through beam tuning or technical commissioning). The best algorithm minimizes either the total uncertainty (i.e., offline and online) or the total offline uncertainty in the projection. Four beam position algorithms are analyzed (A1-A4). Two nozzle lengths are used as examples: a large nozzle (1.5 m length) and a small nozzle (0.4 m length). Three nozzle configurations are considered: IC after SM, IC before SM, and ICs on both sides. Default uncertainties are selected for ion chamber measurements, nozzle entrance beam position and angle, and scanning magnet angle. The results for other uncertainties can be determined by scaling these results or repeating the error propagation. We show the propagation of errors from two locations and the SM angle to the isocenter for all the algorithms. The best choice of algorithm depends on the nozzle length and is A1 and A3 for the large and small nozzles, respectively. If the total offline uncertainty is to be minimized (a better choice if the offline uncertainty is not stable), the best choice of algorithm changes to A1 for the small nozzle for some hardware configurations. Reducing the nozzle length can help to reduce the gantry size and make proton therapy more accessible. This work is important for designing smaller nozzles and, consequently, smaller gantries. This work is also important for log file analyses.
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.