ArticleJournal of radiation research2026
A model-based selection of oral cancer patient for passive scattering proton beam therapy.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTo identify patients with oral cancer (OC) who benefit from proton therapy versus photon therapy using a model-based approach (MBA) to reduce late adverse events. MATERIAL/
methodsPassive scattering proton beam therapy (PSPT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were established for 40 patients with OC, consisting of a dose of 70 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) in 35 fractions. At least 95% of the planning target volume received 95% of the prescribed dose, and the dose to the organs at risk was restricted to be as low as possible. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was used to estimate the risk of late adverse events, including dysgeusia, xerostomia and osteoradionecrosis of the mandible. Patients who were considered as candidates for PSPT were selected if the NTCP difference between both plans (ΔNTCP) exceeded the threshold defined in the Dutch national indication protocol.
resultsPSPT reduced the doses to the spinal cord, pharynx, oral cavity and contralateral salivary glands compared with VMAT. PSPT was also superior for the risk evaluation of each late adverse event calculated by incorporating dose metrics and patient baseline risk factors. For the MBA using ΔNTCP and the thresholds, PSPT was indicated in 24 of the 40 cases, and the remaining 16 cases were considered to be equivalent to VMAT.
conclusionMBA was used to select OC cases that were candidates for PSPT. Compared with VMAT, the risk of expected late adverse events was significantly reduced with PSPT, and 60% of patients were considered eligible for PSPT.
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.