ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Potential of automated online adaptive proton therapy to reduce margins for oesophageal cancer.
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 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.
- Reduction of organ of interest dose in proton therapy for oesophageal cancer through optimized setup robustness settings and online adaptation.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Imaging, automation and workflow challenges for online adaptive proton therapy.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Proton therapy for oesophageal cancer is administered over multiple fractions, based on a single pre-treatment image. However, anatomical changes can lead to the deterioration of the treatment plan, necessitating manual replanning. To keep this within limits, increased residual margins are employed. This study aimed to evaluate the proposed automated Online Adaptive Proton Therapy (OAPT) strategies on their capability to reduce the need for manual replanning, while also exploring the possibility of margin reduction. Materials and methods: Two automated OAPT methods were examined: Automated Dose Restoration (ADR) and Automated Full Adaptation (AFA). ADR makes use of dose restoration, restoring the original dose map based on the patient's altered anatomy. AFA adapts the contours used for plan optimization by applying a deformation field, not only correcting for density changes, but also for the relative location of organs. A comparative analysis of OAPT strategies, evaluating Results: The nominal results of non-adapted plans with 7 mm residual margins required manual replanning for 18% of the patients. ADR reduced this to 6%, while AFA eliminated the need for manual replanning. With 2 mm margins, 47% of cases required manual replanning. ADR reduced this to 18%, and AFA further reduced it to 11%. Conclusions: The proposed OAPT strategies offered a marked improvement compared to a non-adaptive approach. ADR and AFA significantly reduced the necessity for manual replanning and facilitated the reduction of residual margins, enhancing dose conformity and reducing treatment toxicity.
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.