ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Commissioning of a commercial treatment planning system for scanned carbon-ion radiotherapy.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the delivery error detection sensitivity of a new 2D detector prototype for carbon ion PSQA measurements.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Commissioning of a commercial treatment planning system for scanned carbon-ion radiotherapy.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo commission the RayStation (RS) TPS (treatment planning system) for scanned CIRT (carbon-ion radiotherapy) utilizing pencil beam algorithms (PBv4.2).
methodsThe beam model commissioning entailed employing 1D single beams and 2D monoenergetic fields to validate spot profiles with films, assess beam range using Peakfinder measurements, and evaluate fragment spectra through dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) calculations. 3D dose distributions were verified in homogeneous phantoms for both absorbed and relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted doses, and further assessed in double wedge and anthropomorphic phantoms for absorbed dose only. Finally, RBE-weighted dose verification and patient-specific quality assurance were conducted using 58 beams from 20 clinically treated patient plans.
resultsThe results demonstrated good agreement in absolute dose distribution between TPS calculations and measurements, with mean dose discrepancies within 3%. However, deviations were slightly higher (> 1%) for the cases involving the range shifter (RaShi) compared to those without the RaShi (< 1%). Beam range, depth dose distribution, and lateral profiles of spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) closely matched between RS TPS calculations and measurements. Some discrepancies (less than 0.5 mm) were observed at field edges and in penumbra regions due to limitations in simulating asymmetrical spots, but within clinical tolerance. After model tuning, RBE-weighted dose calculations in RS TPS were in agreement with those from the clinically used TPS, except for variations exceeding 3% observed at energies exceeding 408.07 MeV/u, primarily attributed to fragment spectra differences.
conclusionOverall, this study validated the RS TPS for calculating absorbed doses against measurements and RBE-weighted doses against a clinically used TPS. The results suggested that the RS TPS could be utilized for CIRT treatment planning, except for energies exceeding 408.07 MeV/u.
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.