ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2025
Why are not all paediatric cancer patients treated with protons? A population-based report from Sweden, 2016-2023.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2015, a proton therapy (PT) facility was established in Sweden with one aim being to ensure access for all children expected to benefit from PT. Despite potential dosimetric advantages and full subsidisation, PT is not always selected. This study explores reasons for choosing alternative radiotherapy (RT) modalities in a paediatric population. MATERIAL AND
methodsRT courses delivered to patients ≤ 18 years during 2016-2023 were identified from a national registry. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed to identify reasons for not selecting PT.
resultsOnly 34% (n = 275) of all courses identified were delivered with PT. Of the remaining 66% (n = 544), 90% were photon RT, 9% combined PT and photon RT, and 1% electron RT. Among photon RT courses, 97% were delivered with conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), 2% with stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT), and 1% with brachytherapy. The most common reason for choosing photons was non-curative intent (35%), followed by equal or superior expected outcome compared to PT (23%), total body irradiation (TBI) (15%), and uncertainties due to air, organ motion, or metal in field (15%). Dosimetric comparison led to the selection of a favourable or equal photon plan in 8%. Logistical, social, and technical reasons constituted 4%.
conclusionWhile PT can reduce radiation exposure to healthy tissues, particularly important in children, clinical, logistical, and technical factors often necessitate alternative RT modalities. This study highlights the importance of individualised RT planning and multidisciplinary collaboration to balance medical, technical, and practical considerations to ensure optimal treatment approach in every child.
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.