ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Out-of-field dose assessment for pencil beam scanning proton radiotherapy versus photon radiotherapy for breast cancer in pregnant women.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proton therapy in Spain: SEOR-SPROMP multidisciplinary recommendations developed through a RAND/UCLA consensus process.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Case Report: Proton Therapy of a Pregnant Patient With Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Third Trimester Using Synthetic Computed Tomographies for Tumor Monitoring.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Fluorescent nuclear track detectors for out-of-field neutron dosimetry in proton therapy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Understanding Trends in Incidence and Management of Pregnancy-Associated Breast Cancer in a National Sample Using Claims Data.Journal of surgical oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Cancer affects 1 in 1000-2000 pregnancies annually worldwide, creating challenges in balancing cancer treatment and fetal safety. This study compares out-of-field radiation doses between two treatment modalities: 6MV external photon radiotherapy (XRT) and pencil beam scanning proton-therapy (PBS-PRT) for breast cancer, including imaging, to evaluate PBS-PRT as a potential new treatment option. Materials and methods: For breast cancer involving lymph node levels 1-4 and the intramammary lymph nodes, treatment plans were created for XRT (with Flattening Filter (FF) and FF-Free (FFF)) and PBS-PRT, prescribing 15 × 2.67 Gy(RBE). Measurements were conducted using an adapted anthropomorphic phantom representing 20- and 30-week pregnancy. Bubble detectors placed in the phantom's abdomen assessed neutron dose from PBS-PRT, while a Farmer ion chamber was used for imaging and XRT dose. Results: At 20 weeks, PBS-PRT including imaging delivered 22.4 mSv, reducing dose 3.4-fold versus 6FF XRT and 2.5-fold versus 6FFF XRT. At 30 weeks, the PBS-PRT dose was 25.4 mSv, resulting in 7.6-fold and 6.3-fold reductions compared to 6FF and 6FFF XRT, respectively. Conclusions: This study presents the first one-by-one comparison between PBS-PRT and different XRT modalities for pregnant breast cancer patients with an adapted anthropomorphic phantom. PBS-PRT measurements showed that the total equivalent dose was below the 100 mSv threshold outlined in AAPM Task Group Report No. 36 for a 30-week pregnancy, even under a worst-case scenario, maintaining treatment goals. These findings support the adoption of PBS-PRT as the preferred approach for treating pregnant breast cancer patients, should radiotherapy be required.
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.