ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2026
Validation of the Effectiveness of Visual Feedback Systems in Respiratory Gating Carbon Ion Radiation Therapy.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 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: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of respiratory-gated irradiation using visual feedback (VF) in carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT). Furthermore, in patients with liver cancer undergoing CIRT, the treatment times of treatments with and without VF (non-VF) were compared. Material and methods: Thirty-three patients with liver cancer were analyzed. VF system was applied in 10 patients with liver tumors. To evaluate the efficacy of VF, patients treated non-VF were selected as a control group. All treatments were performed under free-breathing conditions in both the VF and non-VF groups. For each VF patient, 1-3 candidate non-VF patients were identified by matching the CTV size and irradiation gate width (amplitude). From these candidates, 1 non-VF patient was selected as a matched control for each VF patient. The average treatment time for each VF patient was compared with that of the corresponding non-VF patient. The effect of the reduced treatment time for VF was calculated by comparing each VF patient with the corresponding non-VF patient. To quantify respiratory variability, the root mean square error and standard deviation were calculated. Results: The treatment time was reduced in 8 of 10 pairs. Further, in 6 of 8 pairs, the treatment time was reduced by more than 5 minutes when using VF compared with non-VF. The RMSE value was significantly reduced at 50% and 100% ( Conclusion: The results suggest that VF contributes to a reduction in treatment time, indicating improved time efficiency during irradiation sessions. In addition, VF improves respiratory waveform reproducibility, which may contribute to enhanced treatment accuracy. Furthermore, shortening the treatment time may reduce the treatment burden on patients and improve overall treatment workflow.
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.