ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2025
Automated Planning for Bias-Free Validation of Discrete Proton Arc Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To systematically compare fully automated planning for 36-field discrete proton arc therapy (36PAT) with: (1) intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with 4- and 6-field clinical beam-angle class solutions (4CS, 6CS), (2) IMPT with patient-specific, computer-optimized beam-angle configurations with 6, 8 or 10 fields (6BAO, 8BAO, 10BAO), and (3) 36-field equiangular ''Utopia'' IMPT (36Utopia; total focus on dosimetric quality, no delivery time considerations) for oropharyngeal cancer patients. Materials and Methods: All automated plan generations were performed with Erasmus-iCycle. An energy layer (EL) reduction algorithm was developed in Erasmus-iCycle to balance plan quality with delivery time in discrete PAT planning. Patient-tailored beam-angle configurations for BAO plans were obtained with the earlier published iCycle-pBAO. In 36Utopia plans, no EL reductions were applied. While beam configurations varied among approaches, all final plans were automatically generated using the published wish-list driven SISS-MCO optimizer with dosimetry-based sparsity-induced spot selection (SISS), followed by multi-criterial spot weight optimization (MCO) and resulting in Pareto-optimality in spot weights. The same wish-list for all delivery approaches prevented planning bias across approaches. Results: 36PAT plans achieved organs at risk (OAR) doses and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) approaching 36Utopia plans. Relative to CS plans, 36PAT plans reduced normal tissue dose, decreasing xerostomia and dysphagia NTCPs. Compared to 4CS, 36PAT reduced summed NTCPs for grade 2 toxicity by 6.1%-point ( Conclusion: PAT demonstrated superior dosimetric quality over clinical class solutions for oropharyngeal cancer and approached Utopia. Ten-field IMPT with personalized beam angles could be an alternative to 36-field PAT with similar expected toxicity, ELs and MUs, but a lower number of fields.
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.