ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
A methodology for optimizing treatment head angle arrangement for multi-angle FLASH intensity modulated radiation therapy platforms.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Flash therapy technology has been introduced, and several systems have been developed for its implementation. One such FLASH radiotherapy platform employs multiple treatment heads that deliver radiation to a target simultaneously. However, the optimal number of treatment heads and their precise angular configuration needed to best meet clinical requirements remain to be determined. Methods and materials: In this study, each treatment head angle is treated as an independent variable, and the total angular discrepancy between a set of beam directions from clinically used plans and those generated by a virtual FLASH radiotherapy platform is defined as the objective function. This problem is solved using an optimization technique known as Adaptive Simulated Annealing (ASA). The performance of the proposed optimization model was evaluated using a dataset of 69,928 beams from 8,866 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans collected over a two-year period in our department. These plans represent various types of common tumors, including nasopharyngeal, breast, esophageal, lung, and rectal cancers. The total angular discrepancy was compared between the beam directions obtained through the optimized treatment head arrangement and the directions used in clinical practice. Results: For a virtual FLASH therapy platform equipped with five treatment heads, we obtained the optimized treatment head angle arrangements both with and without the constraint of an imaging system. Under the imaging system constraint, the optimized angles were 0°, 40.4°, 169.4°, 201.2°, and 239.8°, resulting in an average discrepancy of 38.9°compared to the beam directions used in the reference treatment plan cohort. Without the imaging system constraint, the optimized angles were 0°, 155.4°, 234.4°, 266.2°, and 304.8°, yielding an average discrepancy of 37.8°. In contrast, equally spaced treatment head angles produced an average discrepancy of 78.4°. Conclusion: A methodology for optimizing the treatment head angle arrangement for multi-angle FLASH radiotherapy platforms is proposed. The optimized configuration provides an effective solution for clinical applications, balancing performance with practical feasibility.
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.