ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Impact of reduced robustness settings on the necessity for proton therapy treatment plan adaptation in head-and-neck cancer patients.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Robust optimization mitigates the effects of range and setup uncertainties in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) through robustness settings. However, it increases the dose to organs-at-risk (OARs). This study investigated how reducing range robustness (RR) and setup robustness (SR) settings impacts plan adaptation frequency in IMPT of head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients. Material and methods: A cohort of twenty-six HNC patients treated with IMPT were retrospectively analyzed. Original plans used RR/SR settings of 3%/3 mm. For each patient, four plans were generated with reduced robustness settings. All plans were robustly evaluated on weekly repeat computed tomography scans (rCTs) across 28 error scenarios, applying 2.7-3.2% range and 1 mm setup uncertainty. The failure rate of the voxel-wise minimum D Results: Fixing SR at 3 mm, each 1% reduction in RR setting reduced the mean OAR dose by 0.45 Gy (RBE) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) by 1.1%-points at a 3.5%-points increase in adaptation triggering rate. Implementing a RR of 3%, each 1 mm reduction in SR settings reduced the OAR dose by 1.0 Gy (RBE) and NTCP by 2.2%-points at a 7.0%-points increase in adaptation triggering rate. Conclusions: Reducing robustness margins decreased OAR dose and NTCP with a manageable increase in plan adaptation; however, larger reductions would require adaptive workflows and implementation of range uncertainty mitigation strategies before safe clinical implementation.
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.