ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2026
Trends and Challenges: A 15-Year Review of Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Anthropomorphic Phantom Audits for Proton Therapy.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to analyze the trends in institutional performance on Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) proton phantoms and to investigate the impact of treatment parameters on proton therapy delivery accuracy. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 402 IROC anthropomorphic phantom audits performed by 57 institutions worldwide between 2009 and 2024, including brain, head and neck (H&N), spine, prostate, lung, and liver phantoms. Dosimetric assessments included thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for dose comparison and gamma analysis of radiochromic film. The lung and liver phantoms were irradiated with simulated motion. Univariate analysis was performed to evaluate the relationships between treatment parameters and phantom outcomes (pass/fail, TLD-to-treatment planning systems (TPS) ratio, and gamma passing rate). Linear regression was used to analyze the long-term trends in the institutional delivery accuracy across the 6 phantoms. Results: The inter-institutional dose variation in the target was approximately 3% across all phantoms. Of the participating institutions, 66.7% failed at least one IROC proton phantom. Pass rates were 97% for brain, 91% for H&N, 89% for spine, 76% for prostate, 63% for lung, and 57% for liver phantoms. Phantoms incorporating motion exhibited the poorest performance, particularly in gamma analysis, with 33 ( Conclusion: Overall institutional phantom performance has not significantly improved over time. In particular, the proton lung and liver phantoms continuously demonstrate suboptimal results, likely due to complex geometries and motion management challenges. These findings underscore the need for careful selection of treatment parameters and optimization of motion management strategies. The IROC phantom program remains crucial for characterizing proton therapy systems and identifying clinically significant errors.
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.