ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
Simulation and optimization of treatment schedule for multi-gantry heavy ion therapy.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) facilities face scheduling challenges due to multiple treatment rooms sharing a single synchrotron, leading to extended patient wait times and reduced efficiency. This study developed and evaluated an optimization tool for patient scheduling in multi-gantry CIRT facilities to minimize in-room patient wait time and maximize patient throughput. Methods: A simulation-optimization model was created to emulate patient flow in a facility with one fixed-beam and three gantry rooms. We developed a genetic algorithm (GA) to balance competing objectives like wait times, room utilization, and treatment priority. Its performance was evaluated against baseline scheduling and a Bayesian optimization (BO) approach, using metrics of average in-room wait time and algorithm execution speed. Robustness was tested across various scenarios, including equipment downtime. Results: The GA reduced average patient wait times by 17% (from 0.47 to 0.39 min) compared to baseline. BO performed significantly better, achieving a 92% reduction (to 0.04 min). While GA converged faster (3 min), BO required more iterations to converge, thereby taking longer (7 min), but achieving much greater reduction in average patient wait times. In 100 independent test scenarios, the BO approach significantly reduced wait times in 100% of the simulations, compared to 19% for the GA. Both algorithms maintained robust performance across diverse conditions, demonstrating their reliability. Analysis of outliers (N = 100) showed that BO significantly reduced the maximum patient wait time from 3.52 to 1.33 min (p < 0.001), minimizing clinically relevant extremes. Conclusion: This application of scheduling optimization to the unique constraints of CIRT shows potential for improving efficiency at CIRT facilities. While requiring minutes rather than seconds to converge, the BO algorithm effectively eliminates immobilized wait times, making it a powerful tool for daily schedule optimization. Future research will focus on validation with empirical data from operational CIRT centers.
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.