ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Explore the feasibility of using spot-scanning proton arc therapy for a synchrotron accelerator-based proton therapy system - A simulation study.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Particle Arc Therapy in Cancer Radiotherapy: A Scoping Review of Feasibility and Dosimetric Evidence.Cancers · 2026Review
- Towards ultra-fast treatments: large energy acceptance beam delivery systems and opportunities for proton beam therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Explore the feasibility of using spot-scanning proton arc therapy for a synchrotron accelerator-based proton therapy system - A simulation study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and plan quality of spot-scanning proton arc therapy (SPArc) using a synchrotron-accelerator-based proton therapy system compared to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). APPROACH: Five representative disease sites, including head and neck, lung, liver, brain chordoma, and prostate cancers, were retrospectively selected. Both IMPT and SPArc plans are generated with the HITACHI ProBEAT PBS system's minimum MU constraints and physics beam model. The SPArc plans are generated with 2.5° sampling frequency. The static delivery time was simulated based on the previously published synchrotron delivery sequence model, and the dynamic delivery time was simulated using a proton arc gantry mechanical model integrated with the synchrotron delivery sequence. Both dosimetric plan quality and delivery efficiency are evaluated. MAIN
resultsA superior plan quality is reached compared with the IMPT plans generated for the same disease site. However, a relatively prolonged static and dynamic delivery time post new challenge, as static time increased by 49.22% and dynamic time 59.10% on average. SIGNIFICANCE: This study presents the first simulation results of delivering the SPArc plans using a synchrotron-accelerated proton therapy system. The result shows its feasibility and limitations, which could guide future development.
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.