ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Proton therapy in Spain: SEOR-SPROMP multidisciplinary recommendations developed through a RAND/UCLA consensus process.
Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCompared with conventional photon-based radiotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT) has distinct dosimetric and biological advantages. Nevertheless, its clinical adoption has been slow, primarily because of restricted accessibility, limited availability and heterogeneous selection criteria.
objectiveTo assess the appropriateness of PBT across a broad spectrum of oncological scenarios.
methodsA RAND/UCLA appropriateness consensus process was conducted through 12 national working groups, each represented by an experienced radiation oncologist and collectively reflecting the expertise of 118 specialists nationwide. The period to complete the full consensus process ended in October 2025. A total of 72 clinical statements covering 13 oncological domains were formulated. Panelists anonymously rated each statement using a 9-point Likert scale (1-3: inappropriate; 4-6: uncertain; 7-9: appropriate).
resultsAfter a two-round process, 61 statements were retained. Consensus was achieved for all final statements, with robust panelist participation (≥ 11 panelists per statement). Of these, 53 statements were classified as appropriate for the use of PBT, 6 as uncertain, and 2 as inappropriate. Appropriate indications were most commonly identified as pediatric and adolescent oncology, skull base tumors, sarcomas, selected head and neck cancers, re-irradiation scenarios, and anatomically complex cases where a clear dosimetric or clinical benefit was anticipated.
conclusionsThis national consensus provides an updated comprehensive and structured framework for guiding the appropriate use of PBT in the dynamic context of oncology practice. The resulting recommendations may help to reduce variability in clinical practice, support equitable access, and foster a rational, patient-centered implementation of PBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42225998What 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.