ArticleMedical physics2025
Commissioning of respiratory-gated 4D dynamic dose calculations for various gating widths without spot timestamp in proton pencil beam scanning.
Article in Medical physics, 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.
- Dosimetric comparison of scanned proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy in isodose-prescribed stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Commissioning of respiratory-gated 4D dynamic dose calculations for various gating widths without spot timestamp in proton pencil beam scanning.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
Abstract
backgroundProton pencil beam scanning (PBS) is susceptible to dose degradation because of interplay effects on moving targets. For cases of unacceptable motion, respiratory-gated (RG) irradiation is an effective alternative to free breathing (FB) irradiation. However, the introduction of RG irradiation with larger gate widths (GW) is hindered by interplay effects, which are analogous to those observed with FB irradiation. Accurate estimation of interplay effects can be performed by recording spot timestamps. However, our machine lacks this feature, making it imperative to find an alternative approach. Thus, we developed an RG 4-dimensional dynamic dose (RG-4DDD) system without spot timestamps. PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of calculated doses from the RG-4DDD system for PBS plans with varying breathing curves, amplitudes, and periods for 10%-50% GW.
methodsRG-4DDDs were reconstructed using in-house developed software that assigned timestamps to individual spots, integrated start times for spills with breathing curves, and utilized deformable registrations for dose accumulation. Three cubic verification plans were created using a heterogeneous phantom. Additionally, typical liver and lung cases were employed for patient plan validation. Single- and multi-field-optimized (SFO and IMPT) plans (ten beams in total) were created for the liver and lung cases in a homogeneous phantom. Lateral profile measurements were obtained under both motion and no-motion conditions using a 2D ionization chamber array (2D-array) and EBT3 Gafchromic films on the CIRS dynamic platform. Breathing curves from the cubic plans were used to assess nine patterns of sine curves, with amplitudes of 5.0-10.0 mm (10.0-20.0 mm target motions) and periods of 3-6 sec. Patient field verifications were conducted using a representative patient curve with an average amplitude of 6.4 mm and period of 3.2 sec. Additional simulations were performed assuming a ± 10% change in assigned timestamps for the dose rate (DR), spot spill (0.08-s), and gate time delay (0.1-s) to evaluate the effect of parameter selection on our 4DDD models. The 4DDDs were compared with measured values using the 2D gamma index and absolute doses over that required for dosing 95% of the target.
resultsThe 2D-array measurements showed that average gamma scores for the reference (no motion) and 4DDD plans for all GWs were at least 99.9 ± 0.2% and 98.2 ± 2.4% at 3%/3 mm, respectively. The gamma scores of the 4DDDs in film measurements exceeded 95.4% and 92.9% at 2%/2 mm for the cubic and patient plans, respectively. The 4DDD calculations were acceptable under DR changes of ±10% and both spill and gate time delays of ±0.18 sec. For the 4DDD plan using all GWs for all measurement points, the absolute point differences for all validation plans were within ±5.0% for 99.1% of the points.
conclusionsThe RG-4DDD calculations (less than 50% GW) of the heterogeneous and actual patient plans showed good agreement with measurements for various breathing curves in the amplitudes and periods described above. The proposed system allows us to evaluate actual RG irradiation without requiring the ability to record spot timestamps.
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.