Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41716710›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

Novel pencil-beam scanning proton lattice radiation therapy for the treatment of bulky liver cancer: dosimetric comparison with VMAT-lattice radiotherapy.

Yuting Li, Rachael M Martin-Paulpeter, Christine V Chung, Miguel A Aguilar, Carlos A Matias, Adrian Delgado, Saurabh S Nair, Laurence E Court, Luis Perles, Narayan Sahoo and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Yuting LiDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Rachael M Martin-PaulpeterDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Christine V ChungDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Miguel A AguilarSchool of Health Professions, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Carlos A MatiasSchool of Health Professions, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Adrian DelgadoSchool of Health Professions, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Saurabh S NairDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Laurence E CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Luis PerlesDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Narayan SahooDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Ronald X ZhuDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Falk PoenischDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
David B FlintDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Gabriel O SawakuchiDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Sam BeddarDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Eugene KoayGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston/The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Jamie S BakerSchool of Health Professions, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Ethan B LudmirDepartment of Gastrointestinal Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Joshua S NiedzielskiDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Spatially fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT) delivered as lattice radiotherapy (LRT) creates high-dose 'vertex' subvolumes (VTVH) embedded within low-dose 'valley' regions (VTVL) to intensify intratumoral dose while minimizing radiation dose and toxicity to organs at risk (OARs). We developed a pencil-beam scanning (PBS) intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) LRT planning approach and dosimetrically compared it directly with contemporary photon-based volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) LRT for liver cancer with bulky tumors. Methods: Twenty-one retrospective liver cases were replanned in RayStation to a single fraction of 20 Gy to VTVH with explicit VTVL sparing (mean dose <5Gy). Primary dosimetric endpoints were VTVH D80 and VTVL mean dose (analogous to mean valley dose), with secondary endpoints of VTVH/VTVL ratios (PVDR-like metrics at D80/D90/D100), VTVL D5/D80, GTV D10/D90, and planning risk volume (PRV) 0.03 cm³ hotspots. Statistical analysis consisted of paired tests (t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank) after assessing data normality (Shapiro-Wilk tests) and using α=0.05 for significance. Results: Compared with photon VMAT-LRT, IMPT-LRT significantly reduced VTVL mean dose (p<0.00001) and increased VTVH D80 (p<0.00001), yielding higher VTVH/VTVL ratios at D80/D90/D100 (all p<0.00001). Gross tumor volume (GTV) heterogeneity (D20/D80) significantly increased with proton-LRT (p<0.00001) and OAR hot-spot metrics (PRV D0.03cc) were comparable between both modalities (p=0.71). Conclusions: A robust PBS proton-LRT planning approach was developed and compared to photon VMAT-LRT for large liver tumors. Our IMPT-LRT approach maximizes peak-to-valley separation and simultaneously maintains target coverage while significantly reducing valley dose, as compared to traditional VMAT-LRT. These findings support future prospective clinical evaluation.

Indexed as

bulky tumorhepatocellular carcinomalattice radiation therapyliver cancerpeak-to-valley dose ratioproton therapyspatially fractionated radiation therapyVMAT

Identifiers

PMID41716710
PMCPMC12913141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.