ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Survey data analysis of treatment planning methods in particle therapy facilities.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe conducted a survey on various parameters and methods of treatment planning for particle therapy.
methodsA questionnaire was distributed among particle therapy facilities in Japan. The data collection period was from October 2024 to December 2024.
resultResponses were collected from 21 facilities. For prostate, the largest number of facilities used a posterior PTV margin of 5 mm. The majority of facilities used 3 mm, 5 mm and 5 mm PTV margins for the treatment of head and neck cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer, respectively. The majority of facilities used 2-4 fields for each site. For robustness considerations, 48% of the facilities used robust optimization, with the largest number of 10 facilities using a range uncertainty of 3-4%. Set-up uncertainties of 3-5 mm were most frequently used for each site. Regarding optimization methods, single field uniform dose (SFUD) was most commonly used for the prostate, liver, and lung treatments, and intensity modulated particle therapy (IMPT) for the head and neck treatment. While the majority of facilities created treatment plans with the stopping power ratio (SPR) for intestinal gas as is, 28.6% of the facilities replaced it with a water SPR. The majority of facilities did not replace the lipiodol and metal marker SPRs with tissue SPRs and no replacement, respectively.
conclusionThe trend of setting parameters regarding particle therapy planning was identified. These data could contribute to the launch of new treatments and facilities. They could provide important data for assuring treatment quality in future clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41283972What 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.