ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2026
Impact of additional PRV constraint to Direct OAR robust optimization in IMPT for targets near serial organs at risk.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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
purposeIn intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), the benefit of adding planning organ-at-risk volume (PRV)-like nominal constraints to direct robust optimization for serial organs at risk remains uncertain when target-OAR separation is minimal. Using paraspinal chordoma as a model, we evaluated whether an additional nominal canal/thecal sac (PRV-like) constraint improves OAR sparing or compromises target coverage.
methodsTen patients with paraspinal chordomas were planned using two IMPT strategies: direct cord robust optimization alone (Cord-RO) and direct cord optimization with additional nominal canal/thecal sac constraint (Canal-RO). PTV-based helical tomotherapy (HT) was generated as a secondary benchmark. Prespecified institutional criteria were used for planning, prioritizing OAR constraints over coverage; when standard coverage goals were not achieved, GTV D98 ≥ 59 Gy(RBE) was accepted as the fallback criterion. Endpoints included target coverage, cord/canal doses, and robustness. Statistical comparisons used Wilcoxon signed-rank, Friedman, and Cochran's Q tests, two-sided, p < 0.05.
resultsAll plans met plan-specific OAR constraints. Cord-RO achieved superior target coverage (median HR-CTV D98 [Gy(RBE)]: 63.05 vs. 57.38 vs. 59.46; p ≤ 0.002) and met the fallback objective (GTV D98 ≥59 Gy[RBE]) in 10/10 cases versus 4/10 and 7/10 (p=0.011) in Canal-RO and HT respectively. Robustness favored Cord-RO (median worst-case CTV D95: 90% vs 85%, p=0.018). Nominal cord D0.03cc was similar; worst-case cord D0.03cc was slightly lower with Canal-RO.
conclusionWhen targets abut serial OARs, our results suggest that direct OAR-based robust optimization without additional PRV-like constraints improve target coverage and robustness while maintaining acceptable OAR doses. PRV constraints may be reserved for re-irradiation or when target-OAR separation is adequate.
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.