ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Upright positioning enhances beam angle optimization and organ sparing in head and neck carbon-ion radiotherapy with fixed-beam systems.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Will upright radiotherapy become a new standard? STAND: Perspectives and acceptability from the global radiotherapy community.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Indications for segmentectomy in early-stage lung cancer based on solid volume analysis using three-dimensional computed tomography.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCarbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for head and neck tumors is typically delivered in the supine posture using fixed beam lines, which limits beam angle selection. Combining upright posture with fixed beam lines offers expanded angular access and potential dosimetric advantages, yet optimal angle configurations remain unclear. This study identifies optimal beam angles in head and neck CIRT by comparing dosimetry and robustness of upright and supine plans for fixed-beam systems, thereby supporting beam angle optimization and clinical implementation of upright treatment in fixed-beam systems.
methodsTwenty patients with head and neck cancer were retrospectively robustly optimized using four beam configurations: horizontal beams at 0° (S0) and with a 15° superior-oblique tilt (S15) in the supine posture, anterior beams at 15° (U15) and 45° (U45) in the upright posture. Plans were generated in RayStation (v10B) accounting for ± 3 mm setup and ± 3.5% range uncertainties. Target coverage (D
resultsAll plans achieved comparable nominal target coverage and similar CI values. S15 showed significantly improved robustness (DVH band ΔD
conclusionsThe anterior beams at 15°in the upright setup (U15) showed the best balance of robustness and OAR sparing, making it the preferred option. The 15°-angled supine setup (S15) is a practical alternative. S0 and U45 are not recommended due to inferior robustness and higher brainstem dose, respectively.
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.