Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39724929›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2025

Quantification of beam size impact on intensity-modulated proton therapy with robust optimization in head and neck cancer-comparison with intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Hiromi Baba, Kenji Hotta, Ryo Takahashi, Kana Motegi, Yuya Sugama, Takeji Sakae, Hidenobu Tachibana

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hiromi BabaSection of Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8577, Japan.
Kenji HottaSection of Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8577, Japan.
Ryo TakahashiSection of Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8577, Japan.
Kana MotegiSection of Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8577, Japan.
Yuya SugamaProton Therapy Center, Aizawa Hospital, 2-5-1 Honjo, Matsumoto, Nagano 390-8510, Japan.
Takeji SakaeDoctoral Program in Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennoudai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan.
Hidenobu TachibanaSection of Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8577, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We assessed the effect of beam size on plan robustness for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) of head and neck cancer (HNC) and compared the plan quality including robustness with that of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). IMPT plans were generated for six HNC patients using six beam sizes (air-sigma 3-17 mm at isocenter for a 70-230 MeV) and two optimization methods for planning target volume-based non-robust optimization (NRO) and clinical target volume (CTV)-based robust optimization (RO). Worst-case dosimetric parameters and plan robustness for CTV and organs-at-risk (OARs) were assessed under different scenarios, assuming a ± 1-5 mm setup error and a ± 3% range error. Statistical comparisons of NRO-IMPT, RO-IMPT and IMRT plans were performed. In regard to CTV-D99%, RO-IMPT with smaller beam size was more robust than RO-IMPT with larger beam sizes, whereas NRO-IMPT showed the opposite (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the robustness of the CTV-D99% and CTV-D95% between RO-IMPT and IMRT. The worst-case CTV coverage of IMRT (±5 mm/3%) for all patients was 96.0% ± 1.4% (D99%) and 97.9% ± 0.3% (D95%). For four out of six patients, the worst-case CTV-D95% for RO-IMPT (±1-5 mm/3%) were higher than those for IMRT. Compared with IMRT, RO-IMPT with smaller beam sizes achieved lower worst-case doses to OARs. In HNC treatment, utilizing smaller beam sizes in RO-IMPT improves plan robustness compared to larger beam sizes, achieving comparable target robustness and lower worst-case OARs doses compared to IMRT.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsProton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedbeam sizehead and neck cancerintensity-modulated proton therapyrobustnessrobust optimization

Identifiers

PMID39724929
PMCPMC11753836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.