ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2025
Automated Treatment Plan Integrity Verification for Proton Therapy: Enhancing Error Detection and Workflow Efficiency.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 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.
- Associations of static anatomical geometry with planned dosimetric endpoints in prostate radiotherapy: a multicenter study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- A prospective risk analysis for the clinical commissioning of a dose-driven continuous scanning proton therapy system.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
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
Purpose: Most automatic error detection studies in radiation therapy focus on photon therapy, with limited attention to proton therapy. This study developed and validated an automated framework for initial proton therapy plan review to enhance error detection capabilities and workflow efficiency in pencil-beam scanning treatments. Materials and Methods: Auto-IniCheck, an automated plan review script, was designed following AAPM TG-275 guidelines to systematically verify initial physics plan integrity for proton therapy. Treatment site-specific and modality-specific checklists were integrated into a comprehensive process map indicating manual, automated, or hybrid review requirements with color-coded risk levels. Risk levels for each step were determined using failure modes and effects analysis, guiding a more effective plan review. The efficiency and effectiveness of Auto-IniCheck were assessed by comparing risk priority numbers and quantifying risk reduction between manual and automated plan reviews. Results: Auto-IniCheck enabled 60% to 65% of checklist items to be reviewed automatically, reducing plan review time to <10 s. It achieved an average 65% risk priority number reduction across all process categories by improving error detectability, with 15 high-risk items reclassified as low risk. The greatest improvements were observed in robustness optimization, couch confirmation, and target validation for optimization, each with a 75% risk reduction. Conclusion: Auto-Ini Check streamlines proton therapy plan reviews by delivering measurable gains in efficiency and safety. This automated system proactively addresses proton-specific failure modes and facilitates practical application during initial plan review. As proton therapy programs grow, this approach offers a scalable solution to maintain rigorous quality assurance.
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.