ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2025
Optimizing QACT Frequency and Setup Uncertainty in Cranial Proton Therapy for Normal Tissue Sparing.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 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.
- Optimizing QACT Frequency in Proton Therapy: Analysis of Standard Guidelines Across Treatment Sites.International journal of particle therapy · 2025Article
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
Purpose: Proton therapy offers superior conformality in cranial dose distributions, but its sensitivity to anatomical air-tissue interfaces and patient setup variations can compromise dosimetric robustness. Quality assurance computed tomography (QACT) scans can verify these changes, though they increase cumulative dose and workflow burden. There are currently gaps in knowledge about the setup uncertainty margin that could maintain acceptable daily target coverage, organ at risk (OAR) sparing, and QACT frequency requirements. Materials and Methods: A total of 122 adult patients treated for cranial targets between 2019 and 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were analyzed for adaptive planning rates based on if they had beams passing through the neck or not, and if beams passed through the nasal cavity or not. Twenty patients that did not have beams passing through the neck or nasal cavity were randomly selected and replanned using 2 mm setup uncertainty for robustness compared to the clinically utilized 3 mm setup uncertainty. Synthetic CTs were created for each daily cone beam CT, and the clinical goals were compared against the robustness expectations. Results: Six patients had adaptive plans, only 2 of which were due to anatomical changes, and both of these patients had beams passing through the nasal cavity. Volumetric clinical goals for the clinical target volume (CTV) were met in 95.7% and 99.6% of 2 and 3 mm plans, respectively. Maximum deviation for 2 mm plans was -0.3%. Clinical goals were met in 99.3% of both 2 and 3 mm plans. All dose differences were below 50 cGy except for 1 patient. Conclusion: The implementation of a tailored QACT schedule based on beam trajectory and target location is supported, reducing unnecessary imaging without compromising treatment accuracy recommending a single QACT for all patients except those with targets traversing the sinuses or bulky surface targets. A 2 mm setup uncertainty was shown to provide robust target coverage while minimizing OAR dose.
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.