ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Validation of fully automated intensity-modulated proton therapy with and without transmission beams for nasopharyngeal cancer.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Automated Planning for Bias-Free Validation of Discrete Proton Arc Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer.International journal of particle therapy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) offers dose/volume advantages for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), however is complex, time-consuming, and the Bragg-peak's broad lateral penumbra can compromise target coverage near critical structures. Transmission proton beams (TBs) may mitigate this, while fully automated planning can ensure high-quality plans with reduced planning times. This study aimed to evaluate the added value of TBs in robust, fully automated IMPT (autoIMPT) planning for NPC, and benchmarking these against manually generated clinical IMPT plans. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four NPC patients previously treated with IMPT with 70.00 Gy(RBE) to the primary tumor and 54.25 Gy(RBE) to the elective volumes were included. AutoIMPT- and autoIMPT+TB plans were generated by Erasmus-iCycle, using the same 6-beam configuration and clinical constraints. Dose/volume-based comparison to clinical plans was performed for target coverage, OAR doses, and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP). Results: Voxel-wise (vw) minimum target D98% of automated plans was similar or improved compared to clinical plans, especially in cases with compromised target coverage. In serial OARs, significant dose reductions were observed, especially in brainstem and optical system. Dose reductions to serial OARs were more pronounced in the autoIMPT+TB plans, up to 22.5 Gy for vw-maximum optical nerve D0.03cm Conclusions: Fully automated IMPT and IMPT+TB plans achieved similar or improved robust target coverage and OAR sparing compared to clinical plans. Incorporation of TBs to IMPT showed similar target coverage and enhanced dose reductions in serial OARs.
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.