ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Dosimetric Evaluation of Beam-specific PTV and Worst-case Optimization Methods for Liver Proton Therapy.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimIn spot-scanning proton therapy, intra-fractional anatomical changes by organ movement can lead to deterioration in dose distribution due to beam range variation. To explore a more robust treatment planning method, this study evaluated the dosimetric characteristics and robustness of two proton therapy planning methods for liver cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsTwo- or three-field treatment plans were created for 11 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or metastatic liver cancer using a single-field uniform dose (SFUD) technique. The plans were optimized using either beam-specific planning target volume (BSPTV) or worst-case optimization (WCO). The target coverage for the gross tumor volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV), and organs at risk (OAR) parameters related to toxicity were calculated from the perturbed dose distributions, considering setup and range uncertainties. Statistical analyses of the BSPTV and WCO plans were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test (p<0.05). The calculation times for a single optimization process were also recorded and compared.
resultsThe robustness of the WCO plans in the worst-case scenario was significantly higher than that of the BSPTV plan in terms of GTV target coverage, prevention of maximum dose increase to the gastrointestinal tract, and the dose received by normal liver regions. However, there were no significant differences in PTV, and the calculation time required to create the WCO plan was considerably longer.
conclusionIn SFUD proton therapy for liver cancer, the WCO plans required a longer optimization time but exhibited superior robustness in GTV coverage and sparing of OARs.
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.