ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025
Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated proton therapy and proton arc therapy for pediatric ependymoma.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeProton Arc Therapy (PAT) is an emerging proton therapy treatment modality with the potential to reduce radiation exposure to healthy tissues compared to conventional Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) with fewer beams. This is an attractive option for treating pediatric patients, who are vulnerable to radiation-induced side effects. There is, however, a need to investigate the redistribution of dose to the target volume and organs at risk. In this study, we therefore explored the potential of PAT in proton therapy of pediatric ependymoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three-field IMPT and PAT treatment plans for 10 pediatric ependymoma patients were optimized using the Eclipse treatment planning system. The PAT plans consisted of 8 fields, spanning 170 degrees. Both modalities were robustly optimized with a ± 2 mm isocenter shift and a ± 3% range uncertainty.
resultsPAT showed improved CTV coverage compared to three-field IMPT, with a distinct increase in D98%. A clear dose reduction was found for the cochleae, with median values of 9.32 Gy(Relative Biological Effectiveness [RBE]) [0.76 - 30.40 Gy(RBE)] and 18.30 Gy(RBE) [1.24 - 29.75 Gy(RBE)] for PAT and IMPT, respectively, for the right cochlea. For the left cochlea, the respective doses were 12.34 Gy(RBE) [2.81 - 30.94 Gy(RBE)] and 18.49 Gy(RBE) [4.27 - 31.97 Gy(RBE)]. No significant difference for the brain integral dose was found between the two modalities.
interpretationPAT can improve the dosimetric outcome of proton therapy in pediatric ependymoma patients. Organs at risk dose varied on a patient-to-patient basis; thus, individual treatment plan comparisons are recommended.
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.