ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Are we overestimating proton minibeam therapy effectiveness through physical dose metrics?
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The conventional implementation of proton spatially fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT) uses physical collimators with millimeter apertures to generate minibeams, creating alternating regions of high-dose peaks and low-dose valleys. Current evaluation of SFRT effectiveness predominantly relies on physical quantities, particularly the peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR). While high PVDR and low valley doses have been correlated with improved normal tissue sparing, this physical metric-based approach provides an incomplete picture of the treatment's biological impact. In this work, we aim to quantify biological dose for proton minibeams created using physical collimators and critically evaluate the adequacy of physical (PVDR Methods: Monte Carlo simulations using TOPAS were performed to model proton minibeam arrangements with 70 and 150 MeV monoenergetic beams, as well as a Spread-Out Bragg Peak (SOBP) configuration to represent clinically relevant dose delivery. We investigated the impact of multiple collimator configurations on PVDR: collimator thickness (6.35 cm), hole diameter (1-3 mm), center-to-center (c-t-c) distances (2, 3, 4 mm for 1 mm hole, 4, 6, 8 mm for 2 mm hole) and air gaps (5, 10, and 15 cm) between the collimator and water phantom. For each configuration, 3D dose and dose-averaged LET (LET Results: Our comprehensive analysis revealed significant differences between physical and biological PVDR metrics across various configurations. For both 70 and 150 MeV beams, PVDR Conclusions: The significant variations between PVDR
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.