ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Gantry-based pencil beam scanning proton therapy for uveal melanoma: IMPT versus proton arc therapy.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study reports the single-institution clinical experience of multifield pencil beam scanning (PBS) intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and dosimetric comparison to proton arc for uveal melanoma (UM) in a regular PBS gantry room.
methodsEleven consecutive UM patients were treated with IMPT to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. A customized gaze-fixation device attached to the thermoplastic mask was used to reproduce the globe position for each patient. IMPT plans were robustly optimized with perturbations of 3 mm setup and 3.5% range uncertainties using 3-4 fields without apertures. Each plan was robustly reoptimized (using the same perturbation parameters) using two non-coplanar arc fields in the RayStation treatment planning system. Treatment quality for both plans was evaluated daily using CBCT-generated synthetic CT. Target coverage, conformity, and mean/maximum doses to adjacent organs were assessed.
resultsProton arc plans provided comparable plan quality compared to IMPT plans. Similar target coverage was achieved, with an average GTV D95% equal to 101.1% [Formula: see text] 1.0% and 101.4% [Formula: see text] 0.4% for IMPT and proton arc plans, respectively. Proton arc improves the conformity index (RTOG) compared to IMPT plans (average 0.96 [Formula: see text] 0.23 vs. 0.88 [Formula: see text] 0.18, p = 0.11). Both modalities met all the clinical goals for organs-at-risk (OARs), while proton arc significantly reduced the maximum dose for the retina from, on average, 54.5 [Formula: see text] 0.7 to 53.2 [Formula: see text] 0.3 Gy (p < 0.01). Treatment evaluation on synthetic CT showed that the doses received by patients were highly consistent with the planned doses, with a relative target coverage (D95%) difference within 3.5% for IMPT and 3.1% for proton arc, and the D95% of actual delivery exceeding 98.7% and 98.2%, respectively. The doses delivered to OARs did not exceed clinical constraints.
conclusionsThis is a novel report on proton arc for ocular tumors and gantry-based multifield PBS proton treatment for these tumors. This study demonstrated that both modalities can meet the clinical goals. The IMPT is currently clinically implanted, and 2-field non-coplanar proton arc plans can achieve comparable dosimetric metrics to those of IMPT plans when the deliver technique is matured.
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.