ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Offline Plan Adaptation in Robustly Optimized CBCT-Guided Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Beam Therapy: Lessons From a Real-World Cohort.
Article in Advances 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Pencil beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBS-PBT) is highly sensitive to anatomic variations, often necessitating adaptive replanning (ARP) to ensure accurate dose delivery. While cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is increasingly used for image guidance with PBT, many centers still rely on periodic quality assurance computed tomography scans (QACTs) to trigger ARP. This study reports a large real-world experience with a CBCT-guided offline adaptive PBS-PBT workflow. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively analyzed 300 consecutive patients treated with robustly optimized PBS-PBT. All patients underwent CBCT guided treatments, with QACTs performed either periodically (P-QACT) or triggered by CBCT (T-QACT) changes. We assessed ARP frequency, dosimetric and anatomic triggers, temporal patterns, indications, and workflow impacts across treatment sites. Strategic modifications were introduced after the first 100 patients, and their effect on ARP frequency was evaluated. Results: Of 761 QACTs performed, 541 were P-QACT and 220 were T-QACT. Overall, 94 ARPs were performed in 80 patients (27%), with the highest rates in head neck (62%) and thoracic (43%) cancers. The primary dosimetric trigger was organ-at-risk overdosage (52%), followed by target undercoverage (32%) and a combination of both (16%). T-QACT demonstrated 97% (91/94) sensitivity for triggering ARP with 41.4% (91/220) specificity. Most ARPs (64%) occurred in the first half of the treatment, with 32% in week 3. Beam path changes (52%) were the most frequent anatomic trigger, followed by target deformation (29%) and setup inconsistencies (13%). Strategic modifications reduced ARP frequency from 35% in the first 100 patients to 22.5% in the subsequent 200. Conclusions: PBS-PBT frequently necessitates ARP. A CBCT guided offline adaptive workflow, combined with stringent image review protocols, can largely eliminate the need for routine QACTs and streamline replanning. This approach offers practical guidance for PBS-PBT programs.
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.