ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Comparative treatment planning of very high-energy electrons and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy: Optimising energy and beam parameters.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macro Monte Carlo dose calculation for very high energy electron (VHEE) radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Treatment planning comparison of focused very high energy electron and volumetric modulated arc therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Comparison of protons and very high-energy electrons transmission pencil-beam-scanning for FLASH radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation 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: Very High-Energy Electron (VHEE) beams offer potential advantages over current clinical radiotherapy modalities due to their precise dose targeting and minimal peripheral dose spread, which is ideal for treating deep-seated tumours. To aid the development of clinical VHEE machines, this study adressed the need to identify optimum VHEE beam characteristics for tumours across various anatomical sites. Materials and methods: VHEE treatment planning employed matRad, an open-source treatment planning system, by adapting its proton pencil beam scanning implementation. VHEE beam characteristics were generated using TOPAS Monte Carlo simulations. A total of 820 plans were retrospectively created and analysed across 10 pelvic and 12 thoracic cases and compared against clinical photon VMAT plans to identify the most optimal VHEE beam configuration and energy requirement. Results: VHEE plans outperformed photon VMAT in sparing organs-at-risk (OARs) while maintaining or improving target coverage. While 150 MeV served as the threshold for effectively treating deep-seated sites, 200 MeV was identified as a more optimal energy in the pelvis for achieving the best balance of penetration and sparing abutting OARs. Lower energies (70-110 MeV) also benefitted mid-to-superficial disease in the lung cohort. Typically, VHEE plans required 3-5 fields, and resulted in notable dose reductions to OARs across treatment sites, including: 22.5% reduction in rectal D Conclusion: The study reinforces VHEE's potential in clinical settings, emphasising the need for varied energy ranges to enhance treatment flexibility and 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.