ArticleMedical physics2025
Enhancing accuracy in proton therapy: The impact of geometric uncertainty models in head and neck cancer treatment.
Article in 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.
- Triggered plan adaptation using multi-image optimization for improved robustness in head-and-neck cancer proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Enhancing accuracy in proton therapy: The impact of geometric uncertainty models in head and neck cancer treatment.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnatomical changes present a major source of uncertainty in head and neck (H&N) cancer treatment. Accurate modeling of these changes is important for enhancing treatment precision and supporting better outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess different anatomical uncertainty modeling methods in robust optimization for H&N cancer proton therapy.
methodsThis retrospective study involved five nasopharynx radiotherapy patients. We compared conventional robust optimization with anatomical robust optimization (aRO): (1) conventional robust optimization (cRO-3 mm), which used 3 mm setup shift and 3% range uncertainty. (2) aRO_AM which used three predicted images from an AM capturing systematic anatomical changes, with a 1 mm setup shift and 3% range uncertainty. (3) aRO_PM, which used three predicted images from a probability model (PM) capturing the most probable deformations, also with a 1 mm setup shift and 3% range uncertainty. We assessed weekly dose coverage of the clinical target volumes (CTVs). Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for grade
resultsaRO_PM outperformed cRO-3 mm and aRO_AM, consistently achieving V94
conclusionThe PM demonstrates potential for improving robust optimization by effectively managing anatomical uncertainties in H&N cancer proton therapy, thereby enhancing treatment effectiveness.
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.