Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39839817›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025

Recommendations for reporting and evaluating proton therapy beyond dose and constant relative biological effectiveness.

Armin Lühr, Dirk Wagenaar, Daniëlle B P Eekers, Lars Glimelius, Steven J M Habraken, Semi Harrabi, Miranda C A Kramer, Ranald I Mackay, Ana Vaniqui, Alexandru Dasu and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Maintaining quality of scientific peer-review and publishing inPhysics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

11 authors.

Armin LührDepartment of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.
Dirk WagenaarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Daniëlle B P EekersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Lars GlimeliusRaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Steven J M HabrakenHollandPTC, Delft, the Netherlands.
Semi HarrabiHeidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany.
Miranda C A KramerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Ranald I MackayDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Ana VaniquiBelgian Nuclear Research Center (SCK CEN), Mol, Belgium.
Alexandru DasuThe Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden.
Damien C WeberCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen PSI, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: In proton therapy, a relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 is used to convert proton dose into an equivalent photon dose. However, RBE varies with tissue type, fraction dose, and beam quality parameters beyond dose such as linear energy transfer (LET) raising concerns about increased local effectiveness and potential toxicity. This work aims to harmonize quantities used for clinical consideration of variable RBE for proton therapy. Materials and methods: A survey was distributed to proton centres to determine agreement on RBE-related concerns and clinical implementations. A subsequent clinical expert meeting facilitated by the European Particle Therapy Network was held to achieve consensus and to make clinical recommendations how to prescribe and report beyond using dose and constant RBE. Results: The survey was answered by 17 out of 23 centres contacted (74%). For proton RBE, most concerns existed regarding toxicity in serial organs, while the assumption of an RBE of 1.1 was considered valid for targets. Most physicists intended to consider a physical quantity beyond dose in clinical decision making. Conclusions: A constant RBE of 1.1 was the consensus for prescribing dose. However, current practice of recording and reporting dose in proton therapy must be complemented: the recommended quantity beyond dose was the dose-averaged LET in water from primary and secondary protons, normalized to unit density. This will facilitate analyses of treatment data on effectiveness beyond dose and between centres. No consensus on a single variable RBE model was found. More clinical training on proton RBE is needed.

Indexed as

Educational needsEPTNEuropean Particle Therapy NetworkLinear Energy TransferProton therapyRadiation-induced toxicityRelative Biological Effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID39839817
PMCPMC11750264

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.