Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40678408›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2025

Protons or Photons in Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors-That Is Not the Question.

Liv Cathrine Heggebø, Frank Leonel Bello Garrote, Lars Fredrik Fjæra, Maziar Hervani, Christina Ramberg, Andreas Ottestad, Hanne Blakstad, Trine Martens, Corina S Rueegg, Magnus Gustavsson and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Trade-offs in proton and photon radiotherapy for pituitary adenomas.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Liv Cathrine HeggebøDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Frank Leonel Bello GarroteDepartment of Medical Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lars Fredrik FjæraDepartment of Medical Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Maziar HervaniDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Christina RambergDepartment of Medical Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Andreas OttestadDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hanne BlakstadDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Trine MartensDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Corina S RueeggOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Magnus GustavssonDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Thomas HenryDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Malin BlomstrandDepartment of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Taran Paulsen HellebustDepartment of Medical Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Petter BrandalDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: With the long-life expectancy of patients with pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs), reducing long-term toxicity is essential to preserve quality of life. We aimed to investigate whether 2- or 3-field proton beam therapy (PBT) plans better spare organs at risks (OARs), including healthy tissue, than volumetric modulated arc photon therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods: Fifteen consecutive patients who had received radiation therapy for PitNETs were included. We made 4 treatment plans for each patient: one 3-field PBT plan (3F), two 2-field PBT plans (2F-L and 2F-IV), and 1 VMAT plan. Dosing was set to 1.8 Gy × 30 to allow for dosimetric comparisons. Results: All 4 treatment techniques showed excellent target volume coverage. Compared to VMAT, the 3 PBT techniques had lower doses to OARs. Median D Conclusion: Proton techniques spared OARs better than VMAT; however, absolute dose sparing was relatively small, and the clinical value remains uncertain. Nonetheless, the dose reduction, especially for the hippocampi and integral dose, is probably clinically meaningful. We argue that head-CTV should be assessed, as much of the volume receiving dose is located outside the brain. The size and location of the target volume impacted which proton plan was preferable. We conclude that individualized planning is more important than a mere question on protons or photons in PitNET patients.

Indexed as

Pituitary neuroendocrine tumorsPlan comparisonProton therapyRadiation therapyTreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID40678408
PMCPMC12268004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.