ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
The Estimated Difference in Biologically Effective Dose Between Two-Opposing-Fields-Per-Day and One-Alternating-Field-Per-Day Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.
Article in Advances in radiation 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to determine whether two-opposing-fields-per-day (2-fields-per-day) carbon ion radiation therapy for prostate cancer provides a significant advantage in terms of biologically effective dose (BED) for normal tissue compared to the one-alternating-field-per-day (1-field-per-day) approach. Methods and Materials: The prescribed dose for carbon ion radiation therapy is 54 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) in 12 fractions, and 10 patients were randomly selected for analysis. BED was calculated using 3 methods: the linear-quadratic model, modified microdosimetric kinetic model (mMKM) with a fixed clinical RBE of 2.41 (adopted in most treatment planning systems), and the mMKM without rescaling, using domain radius ( Results: The 2-fields-per-day approach resulted in significantly lower BED for noncentrally located OARs, particularly the femoral head, skin, and bone marrow. Among these, the femoral head showed the largest relative mean BED difference, with approximately 17% using the linear-quadratic model ( Conclusions: Compared to the 1-field-per-day approach, the 2-fields-per-day approach results in lower BED for noncentrally located OARs, though significant variation is observed between the different methods used to estimate BED. The reduction in BED requires further investigation to evaluate its clinical significance and impact on toxicity.
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.