Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41239184›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025

Benefits of robust optimization in comparison with PTV-based planning approach to overcome beam positioning uncertainties in spot-scanning proton therapy.

Vasilii A Kiselev, Aleksander P Chernyaev, Mikhail A Belikhin, Rail R Zamaltdinov, Sergei A Vladimirkin, Sergei E Gritsenko, Aleksey V Nechesnyuk

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vasilii A KiselevFSBI "Federal Scientific Clinical Center for Medical Radiology and Oncology" of FMBA of Russia, Dimitrovgrad, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1709-7681
Aleksander P ChernyaevLomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5250-046X
Mikhail A BelikhinDmitry Rogachev National Medical Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, Moscow, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9197-2336
Rail R ZamaltdinovFSBI "Federal Scientific Clinical Center for Medical Radiology and Oncology" of FMBA of Russia, Dimitrovgrad, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3520-5746
Sergei A VladimirkinFSBI "Federal Scientific Clinical Center for Medical Radiology and Oncology" of FMBA of Russia, Dimitrovgrad, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2905-3946
Sergei E GritsenkoFSBI "Federal Scientific Clinical Center for Medical Radiology and Oncology" of FMBA of Russia, Dimitrovgrad, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2500-158X
Aleksey V NechesnyukDmitry Rogachev National Medical Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology, Moscow, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2537-6157

Funding

No funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe inherent uncertainties associated with proton therapy (PT) may present a challenge to the optimal clinical utilization of this radiotherapy modality. The possibility to overcome the uncertainties associated with temporal fluctuations in some parameters of the PT system by selecting an additional clinical target volume to planning parget volume (CTV-PTV) margin or by modifying the planning approach was suggested. The objective of this work was to verify the sufficiency of the calculated additional margin for overcoming beam positioning uncertainties in spot-scanning PT.

methodsTreatment plans for eight patients were calculated using two methods (robust optimization and PTV-based approaches) and evaluated with regard to dose-volume histogram (DVH)-based dosimetric metrics. The robustness of each plan was evaluated under six scenarios in linear directions ±4 mm and two scenarios with a ±3.5% range uncertainty. A comparison between robust optimization and PTV-based approaches was performed in the context of additional 1-mm setup uncertainty associated with facility-specific beam uncertainties.

resultsNo statistically significant difference was identified between the initial plans of the PTV-based and robust approaches with regard to investigated dosimetric metrics. But robust optimization shows better results in comparison to PTV approach in majority of investigated scenarios. CTV was fully encompassed by the 100% dose in the plans created using the robust optimization approach. The Robust approach demonstrated superior dose conformity to the CTV, both for the 100% and 95% prescribed doses. Although both the PTV and Robust approaches permitted homogeneity in all scenarios, the superiority of the Robust approach was evident.

conclusionsIt is necessary to consider the facility-specific beam uncertainty as additional margin during treatment planning in PT. It was demonstrated that the robust optimization approach is an effective method for eliminating beam-related facility-specific uncertainties order of 1 mm in comparison to the PTV planning approach.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNeoplasmsProton TherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageUncertaintyproton therapyquality assurancerobust optimizationtreatment planninguncertainties

Identifiers

PMID41239184
PMCPMC12618176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.