ArticleJournal of radiation research2024
Investigation of interfractional range variation owing to anatomical changes with beam directions based on water equivalent thickness in proton therapy for pancreatic cancer.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 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.
- Evaluation of the efficacy of plan adaptation in stereotactic body proton therapy for pancreatic cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess the interfractional anatomical range variations (ARVs) with beam directions and their impact on dose distribution in intensity modulated proton therapy, we analyzed water equivalent thickness (WET) from 10 patients with pancreatic cancer. The distributions of the interfractional WET difference ($\Delta{\mathrm{WET}}^{\theta }$) across 360° were visualized using polar histograms. Interfractional ARVs were evaluated using the mean absolute error and ΔWET pass rate, indicating the percentage of $\Delta \mathrm{WE}{\mathrm{T}}^{\theta }$ < thresholds. The impact on dose distribution in proton therapy was evaluated based on two treatment plans for 40 Gy(RBE)/5 fractions: 'Plan A', using two beam angles, in which the target was closest to the body surface among four perpendicular directions; and 'Plan B', using two beam angles with small ARVs. Analysis revealed individual variations in angular trends of interfractional ARVs. Three distinct trends were identified: Group 1 exhibited small ARVs around posterior directions; Group 2 exhibited small ARVs except ~60°; Group 3 demonstrated minimal ARVs only ~90°. In dose evaluation, while 150° and 210° were selected in Plan B for 9 out of 10 patients, for the remaining patient, 60° and 90° were chosen. Comparing dose volume histogram parameters for all patients, Plan B significantly reduced target coverage loss while maintaining organ-at-risk sparing comparable to Plan A. These results demonstrated that selecting beam angles with small interfractional ARVs for each patient enhances the robustness of dose distribution, reducing target coverage loss.
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.