ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Rotational arc treatments with static ports and dynamic collimation reduces cardiopulmonary dose for esophageal cancer patients and diminishes model-based predicted benefit of proton therapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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.
- Can knowledge-based autoplanning keep up with advances in radiotherapy optimization for oropharyngeal cancer?Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Reducing dose to the lungs and heart is essential to minimize toxicity in esophageal cancer patients undergoing trimodality therapy. This study compared a new technique combining rotational arcs, static beam angles and dynamic collimation (RAD) against standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton therapy (PT). Materials and methods: RAD-plans were created for ten patients from the PROTECT trial who had high mean lung doses in their clinical IMRT-plan. For all techniques, optimization prioritized lung sparing. Predicted pulmonary complication risks were estimated using a validated NTCP-model. Comparisons were made between IMRT, RAD, and PT, and the impact on model-based PT-referral (ΔNTCP > 10 %) was assessed. Results: RAD lowered mean lung dose compared with IMRT (median 10.2 Gy [range 8.3-12.5 Gy] versus 12.0 Gy [10.2-16.3 Gy], p < 0.01) and also incidentally reduced mean heart dose (median 24.1 Gy [20.9-25.0 Gy] versus 25.7 Gy [21.9-26.1 Gy], p < 0.01). PT achieved the greatest sparing, with mean lung dose reduced to 5.1 Gy [2.8-7.1 Gy] and mean heart dose to 9.8 Gy [6.4-13.6 Gy] (both p < 0.01 compared to RAD). RAD reduced the predicted pulmonary complication risk versus IMRT on average 7 % (p < 0.01), with individual patient ΔNTCPs ranging from 2 % to 19 %. PT offered further benefit, with an additional average ΔNTCP reduction of 11 % compared to RAD (p < 0.01). Model-based PT-referral was indicated for nine IMRT-plans versus only five RAD-plans. Conclusion: RAD reduced lung and heart dose compared to IMRT in esophageal cancer patients undergoing trimodality treatment, lowering predicted risk for pulmonary complications, which influenced PT-referral decisions.
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.