ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Carbon-ions, protons or photons for head and neck cancer radiotherapy-an in silico planning study.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare dose to the organ at risk (OAR) and target coverage of carbon-ion beam, protons, and photons for patients with head and neck cancer. Treatment plans for carbon-ion pencil beam scanning (C-PBS) (64 Gy (RBE) in 16 fractions), proton pencil beam scanning (P-PBS), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) (70 Gy in 35 fractions for P-PBS and VMAT) were generated and compared using different dose constraints per treatment modality. Dose metrics (e.g. D95,V20) were analyzed. Statistical significance was assessed by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Also, we investigated howmany normal tissues were irradiated above the constraint after achieving the planning goals (pass rate) in the OARs. C-PBS outperformed P-PBS and VMAT in PTV coverage (p = 0.01 for both); however, P-PBS and VMAT did not differ substantially from each another (p = 0.35). C-PBS was superior in limiting the dose to the OAR. The pass rates for C-PBS, P-PBS, and VMAT were 94%, 81%, and 69%, respectively. C-PBS demonstrated superior performance compared to VMAT and P-PBS in terms of dose conformation to the target volume and normal tissue sparing, and achieved the highest pass rate in meeting dose constraints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41329435What 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.