ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Implementing ocular treatment with pencil beam scanning: the FHCC experience.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundThe Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center (FHCC) has developed a novel in-house method for ocular proton therapy by adapting a pencil beam scanning (PBS) beamline and using a commercial treatment planning system. This manuscript outlines the workflow from simulation to treatment delivery and presents our experiences with the initial 40 patients.
methodsKey innovations of our treatment approach include in-house developed treatment chair and gaze localization systems, CT imaging for planning, and a Monte Carlo algorithm for dose calculation. We gathered data on patient characteristics, dose volume statistics, and total treatment time. Additionally, we examined the distances patients traveled to access ocular proton therapy. An example illustrating our treatment technique is also presented.
resultsThe average patient age at the time of treatment was 63.9 years. Tumor apical height ranged from 0.7 to 11.9 mm, and the largest basal diameter from 2.8 to 15.5 mm. GTV volumes ranged from 0.02 to 0.89 cc, while PTV volumes ranged from 0.17 to 2.27 cc. The D99% dose to GTV ranged from 5041 to 5242 cGy (RBE). The median mean dose to the lacrimal gland was 1570 cGy (RBE), while the median D2% doses to the optic nerve, macula, and optic disc were 4188 cGy (RBE), 5024 cGy (RBE), and 5133 cGy (RBE), respectively. Out of the 40 patients, 16 successfully met all treatment planning goals. The remaining patients did not meet some goals due to the target either abutting or being close (< 2 mm) laterally or distally to the OARs. The total treatment duration per fraction was approximately 25 min. Nearly one-third of the patients traveled around 900 miles to receive ocular treatment.
conclusionsThe approach at FHCC demonstrates that ocular proton therapy can be effectively delivered using a general-purpose PBS beamline, providing a solution for centers without dedicated ocular beamlines.
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.