ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Comparative evaluation of static and dynamic 4D dose recalculations in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for oesophageal cancer.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: The robustness of pencil beam scanned (PBS) proton plans to respiratory motion is often assessed in clinical practice by static 4D dose recalculations on selected 4D computed tomography (4DCT) phases. These capture anatomical variation but neglect interplay effects from sequential beam delivery. This study investigates these effects by comparing static and dynamic 4DDC for esophageal cancer patients. Materials and methods: PBS proton plans following the PROTECT trial protocol were created for ten esophageal cancer patients from the open-access DIR-Lab 4DCT dataset. Plan robustness was evaluated by static and dynamic 4DDC, where the static approach accumulated the computed dose in individual 4DCT phases, while dynamic incorporated the temporal delivery sequence to capture interplay effects. The two 4DDCs were compared by their compliance to the dose restrictions for target volumes and organs at risk (OARs). Results: Static 4DDC consistently predicted higher target coverage than dynamic approach. Discrepancies were most pronounced in patients with substantial target motion (≳10 mm). However, dose metrics for the OARs showed high agreement between the two methods. Compliance with the clinical constraint on target coverage (V Conclusion: Protocol-based static 4DDC tended to overestimate target coverage robustness to respiratory motion. Although differences were minor in most cases, patients with large motion can have significant discrepancies, underscoring the importance of implementing dynamic 4DDC in PBS proton planning for esophageal cancer.
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.