ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
Survey and profile data on particle therapy technology in Japan.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carbon-Ion Radiation Therapy for Unresectable Solitary Fibrous Tumor of the Intermediate Category: A Nationwide Multi-institutional Observational Study by the Japan Carbon-Ion Radiation Oncology Study Group.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical White Paper From the "Hadrontherapy for Life" Symposium-Clinical Expansion of Carbon Ion Facilities Worldwide.International journal of particle therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to report profile data on the technical elements of Japanese particle therapy facilities. We requested a survey on the following four technical elements; (1) facilities and systems, (2) immobilization device and treatment planning CT, (3) patient specific QA, and (4) patient positioning. Responses were received from 21 facilities. The most commonly used accelerators were synchrotrons, which were used in 17 facilities (81.0%). The lowest available energy was widely distributed between 55.6 MeV/u and 290 MeV/u, but the maximum energy was often around 240 MeV/u for proton beams and 430 MeV for carbon ion beams. Of all treatment rooms, passive irradiation accounted for 57.7% (30 rooms), layer stacking irradiation for 7.7% (4 rooms), and scanning irradiation for 32.7% (17 rooms). Shell-type immobilization devices were most commonly used in the head and neck region, and vacuum bags were most commonly used in the thoracic to caudal regions. Lateral dose profile measurement was the most commonly used patient specific QA method. The most commonly used detector was the ionization chamber or ionization chamber-type planar detector. 2D X-ray radiography was the most commonly used in patient positioning. Marker matching was commonly used for the prostate and liver, bone matching for the head and neck and lungs, and tumor matching was used only sparingly. The results of this study may clarify current issues in particle therapy technology and provide data to guide further technology development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40699545What 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.