ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Optimizing quality assurance CT schedules during adaptive proton therapy for enhanced patient care.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal CT number characterization of a novel upright CT for proton therapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Nominal plan robustness may predict plan degradation in proton therapy for oropharyngeal head-and-neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Optimizing quality assurance CT schedules during adaptive proton therapy for enhanced patient care.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
purposeThis study aims to optimize the frequency of routine quality assurance CT (QACT) scans in proton beam therapy (PBT) for brain, head and neck (HN), and prostate treatments. The goal is to enhance treatment efficiency without compromising treatment quality. By reducing the frequency of QACT scans, the study seeks to minimize imaging dose and better utilize patient and staff resources. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective, IRB-approved review analyzed 878 QACTs from 263 patients across three anatomical sites treated with PBT at our center in 2020. The study examined QACT and replanning patterns to identify the most efficient QACT schedules. Observational and post-implementation analysis utilized treatment data spanning from 2021 to 2022. The QACT and replanning patterns of each site were analyzed to identify the optimal frequency of QACTs.
resultsOut of 205 QACTs for brain cancer patients, only five (2.5%) led to adaptive planning, indicating that a single QACT at the start of the second treatment week is optimal. In HN cases, 38 of 437 QACTs (8.7%) necessitated replanning, leading to the recommendation of an initial QACT during the first three fractions then followed by QACT for every 10 fractions. For prostate cancer, three out of 236 QACTs (1.3%) were used for adaptive planning, with the suggestion of one initial QACT during the first three fractions, and possibly an additional scan halfway through for patients with more complex treatment plans, such as involving seminal vesicles and lymph nodes and/or planned as a sequential boost.
conclusionThe retrospective analysis proposes a significant reduction in QACT frequency, which could reduce the overall QACT burden while maintaining treatment quality and accuracy. This tailored approach to QACT scheduling represents an important step in optimizing proton therapy protocols, improving patient experience, and conserving medical resources.
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.