ArticlePloS one2025
Towards implementation of independent calculation-based dose verification in proton therapy.
Article in PloS one, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProton therapy offers precision in targeting tumors while minimizing damage to surrounding healthy tissues. Independent dose calculation is a secondary dose validation tool for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) using Monte Carlo simulations. PURPOSE: To implement independent dose calculation for PSQA in proton therapy and establish confidence limits, tolerance limits, and action limits. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The point dose validation of independent dose calculation was performed by ionization chamber. The dose distributions between independent dose calculation and treatment planning calculation were compared in single and multiple energy plans. Fifty clinical plans covering five regions (head and neck, breast, chest, abdomen, and pelvis) were evaluated using the gamma analysis criteria of 3%, 3 mm, and 5%, 3 mm. Confidence limits, tolerance limits, and action limits were determined.
resultsThe dose differences between measurement and independent dose calculation for each energy level were within 1.0%. The results showing gamma passing rates of 99.4 ± 0.6% for single energy plans and over 98.0% for multiple energy plans. The average gamma passing rates for all treatment sites was 95.9 ± 2.7% with 3%/3 mm criteria, which increased to 97.9 ± 1.8% with 5%/3 mm criteria. The confidence limits, tolerance limits, and action limits showed 90.7%, 89.1%, and 85.4% with 3%/3 mm criteria and 94.3%, 93.2%, and 91.6% for 5%/3 mm criteria, respectively.
conclusionsThe independent dose calculation could potentially be implemented in PSQA. It is a secondary dose validation method for busy clinic. Particular attention should be paid to a confidence limit, tolerance limit, and action limit for reliable treatments.
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.