ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Pencil beam scanning proton lattice radiotherapy: single-field versus multi-field optimization.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- VMAT-based lattice radiotherapy for advanced bulky hepatocellular carcinoma within multimodality treatment: a consecutive feasibility series.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- A single-field-each-peak optimization method for motion-robust proton LATTICE therapy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Spiral volumetric modulated arc therapy enhances peak-to-valley dose contrast for 3D-GRID radiotherapy compared to VMAT and tomotherapy.BMC cancer · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of single-field versus multi-field optimization in the clinical implementation of pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton lattice radiotherapy (LRT). Methods: LRT proton plans were created retrospectively for 12 patients with head-and-neck, thoracic, or abdominal bulky tumors, averaging a gross tumor volume (GTV) of 1011.1 cc (between 333 cc and 3546 cc). The plans were developed in the RayStation treatment planning system (version 2023B), adhering to established consensus guidelines for prescription dose and planning goals. For each plan, 6-8 vertices with an average diameter of 1.4 cm were positioned approximately 3.5 cm apart. The prescription was 18 Gy to each vertex and 3 Gy to the GTV. Single-field optimization (SFO) and multi-field optimization (MFO) techniques were employed. The dosimetric parameters of GTV Dmean, D95%, generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD a=-10), vertex D90%, peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), and skin D1% were used for plan quality assessment. Plan robustness was also investigated by comparing dose metrics between the nominal and second worst-case scenarios in the robust analysis. Results: For all 12 patients, both SFO and MFO plans achieved a PVDR close to 4 across the three treatment sites. No significant differences in primary dose metrics were observed between SFO and MFO plans, except for skin D1%, which was reduced by an average of 25% in the MFO plans (p<0.05). Robustness evaluation indicated larger deviations in PVDR, GTV Dmean, and skin D1% between nominal and second worst-case scenarios for MFO plans compared to SFO (p<0.05). Conclusion: Both SFO and MFO techniques can be reliably implemented with current proton beam quality standards and advanced treatment planning algorithms. While SFO offers better plan robustness in maintaining the originally optimized metrics under various treatment-related uncertainties, MFO enhances the ability to spare critical organs.
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.