ArticleJournal of radiosurgery and SBRT2024
Comprehensive assessment of proton plans with three different beam delivery systems for multiple brain metastases.
Article in Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare plan quality among photon volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), Gamma Knife, and three different proton beam modalities. Methods: Fifty-five brain lesions from 20 patients were planned with three different proton spot size ranges of cyclotron-generated proton beams, CPBs (spot size σ: 2.7-7.0 mm), linear accelerator proton beams, LPBs (σ: 2.9-5.5 mm), and linear accelerator proton minibeams, LPMBs (σ: 0.9-3.9 mm), with and without apertures and compared against photon VMAT and Gamma Knife plans. Dose coverage to each lesion for each proton and photon plan was set to 99% of the GTV receiving the prescription (Rx) dose. All proton plans used ±2 mm setup uncertainty and ±2% range uncertainty in robust evaluation to achieve V Results: When compared to CPB generated plans, average CI and GI were significantly better for the LPB and LPMB plans. Aperture-based IMPT plans showed improvement from Gamma Knife for all dosimetric metrics. Aperture-based IMPT plans also showed improvement in all dosimetric metrics for shallow tumors (d < 2.5 cm) when compared with non-aperture-based plans. Conclusion: The LPB and LPMB stand as excellent alternatives to CPB or photon therapy and significantly increase the preservation of normal tissue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39087064PMC11288651What 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.