ArticlePrecision radiation oncology2023
Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.
Article in Precision radiation oncology, 2023. 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.
- Editorial: Innovations, advances, and challenges in precision radiation oncology physics.Precision radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Review
- Impact of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.Precision radiation oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To determine the effect of dose calculation accuracy on inverse linear energy transfer (LET) optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy, and to determine whether adding more beams would improve the plan robustness to different dose calculation engines. Methods: Two sets of intensity-modulated proton therapy plans using two, four, six, and nine beams were created for 10 prostate cancer patients: one set was optimized with dose constraints (DoseOpt) using the pencil beam (PB) algorithm, and the other set was optimized with additional LET constraints (LETOpt) using the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. Dose distributions of DoseOpt plans were then recalculated using the MC algorithm, and the LETOpt plans were recalculated using the PB algorithm. Dosimetric indices of targets and critical organs were compared between the PB and MC algorithms for both sets of plans. Results: For DoseOpt plans, dose differences between the PB and MC algorithms were minimal. However, the maximum dose differences in LETOpt plans were 11.11% and 15.85% in the dose covering 98% and 2% (D2) of the clinical target volume, respectively. Furthermore, the dose to 1 cc of the bladder differed by 11.42 Gy (relative biological effectiveness). Adding more beams reduced the discrepancy in target coverage, but the errors in D2 of the structure were increased with the number of beams. Conclusion: High modulation of LET requires high dose calculation accuracy during the optimization and final dose calculation in the inverse treatment planning for intensity-modulated proton therapy, and adding more beams did not improve the plan robustness to different dose calculation algorithms.
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.