Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39059509›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2025

NRG Oncology White Paper on the Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy.

Harald Paganetti, Charles B Simone, Walter R Bosch, Daphne Haas-Kogan, David G Kirsch, Heng Li, Xiaoying Liang, Wei Liu, Anita Mahajan, Michael D Story and 4 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Harald PaganettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Charles B SimoneNew York Proton Center, New York, New York; Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Walter R BoschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Daphne Haas-KoganDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
David G KirschRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Heng LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Xiaoying LiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida.
Wei LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona.
Anita MahajanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Michael D StoryDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Paige A TaylorUT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Henning WillersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ying XiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jeffrey C BuchsbaumNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: jeff.buchsbaum@nih.gov.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
IROC: Enhancing local enrolling site radiological data capture capabilities for NCTN trialsU24CA180803 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI Thomas J. FitzGerald, MICHAEL V KNOPP · 2014 to 2026
$116.2M
Project 3: Enhanced Sensitivity of Tumors to Proton Beam Therapy: Mechanisms and Biomarkers.P01CA261669 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI TITT, UWE · 2021 to 2025
$14.0M
Washington University/ Siteman Cancer Center Lead Academic SiteU10CA180833 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BARTLETT, NANCY L, KOZOWER, BENJAMIN D · 2014 to 2018
$7.6M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA261669NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180833NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This position paper, led by the NRG Oncology Particle Therapy Work Group, focuses on the concept of relative biologic effect (RBE) in clinical proton therapy (PT), with the goal of providing recommendations for the next-generation clinical trials with PT on the best practice of investigating and using RBE, which could deviate from the current standard proton RBE value of 1.1 relative to photons. In part 1, current clinical utilization and practice are reviewed, giving the context and history of RBE. Evidence for variation in RBE is presented along with the concept of linear energy transfer (LET). The intertwined nature of tumor radiobiology, normal tissue constraints, and treatment planning with LET and RBE considerations is then reviewed. Part 2 summarizes current and past clinical data and then suggests the next steps to explore and employ tools for improved dynamic models for RBE. In part 3, approaches and methods for the next generation of prospective clinical trials are explored, with the goal of optimizing RBE to be both more reflective of clinical reality and also deployable in trials to allow clinical validation and interpatient comparisons. These concepts provide the foundation for personalized biologic treatments reviewed in part 4. Finally, we conclude with a summary including short- and long-term scientific focus points for clinical PT. The practicalities and capacity to use RBE in treatment planning are reviewed and considered with more biological data in hand. The intermediate step of LET optimization is summarized and proposed as a potential bridge to the ultimate goal of case-specific RBE planning that can be achieved as a hypothesis-generating tool in near-term proton trials.

Indexed as

Linear Energy TransferNeoplasmsProton TherapyRelative Biological EffectivenessClinical Trials as TopicHumansOrgans at RiskRadiation OncologyRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID39059509
PMCPMC11646189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.