ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2025
Three-year insights from a proton therapy centre: Evolving strategies in ependymoma treatment planning.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment of posterior fossa ependymoma with proton therapy (PT) is challenging due to the proximity to the brainstem and potential risk of brainstem toxicity. Materials and methods: This retrospective study included patients with intracranial ependymoma treated with PT or a hybrid proton-photon (PT-XT) approach at our centre between July 2020 and December 2023 with a minimum 12 month follow-up. Treatment approach was determined based on tumour relationship to the brainstem. Patient and tumour characteristics and treatment planning approaches were evaluated, and dosimetric data between PT and PT-XT approaches were compared. Outcomes including symptomatic brainstem injury (SBI) and asymptomatic radiographic changes (ARC) were assessed. Results: Fourteen patients were included, of which nine had posterior fossa ependymoma, with five treated using a hybrid PT-XT planning approach and four with PT alone. The hybrid PT-XT approach involved delivering 75 % of the treatment (0-45 Gy(RBE)) with PT and the remaining portion (45-59.4 Gy) with XT, addressing concerns regarding increased relative biological effectiveness of PT in the brainstem. While all plans adhered to the European Particle Therapy Network D Conclusion: Tailored planning approaches, depending on location and relationship to the brainstem, are essential when treating ependymoma patients. A hybrid PT-XT approach, is feasible in well-selected patients, demonstrating acceptable target coverage, brainstem doses, and to date no occurrence of symptomatic brainstem injury.
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.