ArticleCureus2025
Training and Validating a Knowledge-Based Model for Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy of Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Nodes.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Development and Evaluation of Knowledge-Based Treatment Plans for Chest Wall and Regional Lymph Node Irradiation.Cureus · 2026Article
- Knowledge-based planning for intensity-modulated proton therapy of the breast and chest wall with regional lymph nodes: development, validation, and comparative evaluation of two models.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
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
Introduction In this work, we aimed to create and assess the performance of a knowledge-based planning (KBP) model for optimizing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in the treatment of prostate cancer involving pelvic lymph nodes (LNs). Materials and methods Fifty patients previously treated with IMPT to the prostate/prostate bed, including LNs and optional gross tumor volume (GTV) boost, were used for the training of a KBP model. The model was iteratively refined by replanning a subset of 20 of these patients. For validation, 20 patients not included in the model training set were used. Treatment plans were optimized using the objective list predicted by the model. Plan quality was evaluated using dosimetric metrics for both target and organs at risk (OARs), and the results were compared with manually generated plans using paired t-tests (p < 0.05). Results Eighteen out of 20 plans generated by the model were deemed to be clinically acceptable without the need for additional adjustments. The plans produced by the model demonstrated comparable robustness in clinical target volume (CTV) coverage. Significant improvements in OAR sparing were achieved for the rectum (V40Gy = -4.26 ± 3.00%), bladder (V40Gy = -6.36 ± 4.34%), and penile bulb (Dmean = -1.61 ± 9.76 Gy) when using the KBP model, compared to the manual plans. Other significant differences include slightly higher doses to the cauda equina (D0.03cc = 3.44 ± 6.09 Gy) and the left femur (D0.03cc = 2.50 ± 3.69 Gy) when compared to manual plans. No statistically significant differences were found for other OARs. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the KBP model produced plans comparable to manually generated clinical plans, and these plans are clinically acceptable. The iterative tuning process improved the quality of plans generated by the KBP model.
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.