ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Treatment planning comparison of proton arc therapy and intensity modulated proton therapy for synchronous bilateral breast or chest wall and regional nodal irradiation.
Article in Physics and imaging 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and purpose: Bilateral breast or chest wall and regional nodal irradiation involves large treatment volumes adjacent to multiple critical organs. The feasibility and normal tissue sparing of proton arc therapy (PAT) in this setting were evaluated. Materials and methods: PAT and Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) plans were created for twenty breast cancer patients prescribed 50 Gy (RBE) in 25 fractions. Dose-volume parameters and delivery time were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with thick chest walls (bilateral intact breasts or implants) and thin chest walls (post-mastectomy without reconstruction). Results: Target coverage was comparable between techniques. Compared to IMPT, PAT reduced mean left lung dose by 45.5% (4.8 vs. 8.7 Gy (RBE), p < 0.001) and mean right lung dose by 36.2% (5.1 vs. 8.0 Gy (RBE), p < 0.001). PAT achieved reduction in maximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) dose (3.2 vs. 4.3 Gy (RBE), p = 0.044). In the near-surface region, the mean dose was reduced by 4.1 Gy (RBE) with PAT (40.8 vs. 44.9 Gy (RBE), p < 0.001), and this benefit was consistent in subgroup analyses of patients with thick chest walls (39.9 vs. 44.6 Gy (RBE) p < 0.001) and patients with thin chest walls (43.6 vs. 45.9 Gy (RBE), p = 0.020). PAT also demonstrated significantly shorter average delivery time compared to IMPT (195 vs. 497 s, p < 0.001). Conclusions: PAT reduced dose to the lungs, heart, and near-surface region, while improving delivery efficiency in bilateral breast or chest wall and regional nodal irradiation.
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.