ArticleArXiv2025
An ion treatment planning framework for inclusion of nanodosimetric ionization detail through cluster dose.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanodosimetry relates Ionization Detail (ID) and ionization parameters (Ip) to biological endpoints relevant for charged-particle radiotherapy. This supports a more physics-based modeling of biological effectiveness than traditional dose-response relationships and RBE models. Faddegon et al. (2023) introduced cluster dose g(Ip) as a physical quantity, bridging ID to the treatment planning level, which can be directly optimized. We developed a framework enabling cluster dose optimization via a pencil-beam (PB) algorithm, and validated against Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The framework, integrated into the treatment planning toolkit matRad, uses precomputed Ip values obtained from MC track-structure simulations. We applied our tool for plan optimization with protons, helium, and carbon ions in a water phantom and a prostate case. Recalculation with TOPAS showed 3D gamma passing rates >97% (phantom) and >98% (patient) using a 3%/3mm criterion and a threshold of 10% of the maximum dose. Cluster dose F5 optimization produced homogeneous target coverage, with heavier ions requiring lower absorbed doses for the same prescribed cluster dose level. This demonstrates the feasibility of fast, accurate cluster dose optimization using PB algorithms.
Identifiers
40463693PMC12132270What 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.