ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2026
Proton Therapy Utilization Among Adult Cancer Patients.
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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Proton therapy (Pr) can spare normal tissue and reduce toxicity; however, it remains a limited resource. The aim of this study was to evaluate demographic and clinical differences in the use of Pr amongst adult cancer patients at a single institution, with particular attention to the impact of insurance coverage. Materials/Methods: Adult patients who underwent radiation between 2015 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between Pr use and variables including sex, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity, marital status, preferred language, smoking status, year of treatment, treatment intent, diagnosis, and distance to facility. Propensity score matching was then used to further validate associations between race and travel distance. Separately, Medicare-insured patients were considered an individual cohort and analyzed utilizing the same demographic variables noted. Results: Of 12,320 patients identified, 2342 and 9978 received Pr and Photon therapy (Ph), respectively. On MVA, Black and Asian race, current smoker, and shorter straight-line distance to the facility remained associated with lower likelihood of treatment with Pr. On propensity-matched scoring, Black patients and patients living within 250 mi of the center remained significantly less likely to receive Pr. Of 4258 Medicare-only patients, 1261 and 2997 received Pr and Ph therapy, respectively. On MVA analysis, female sex, Black race, and decreasing distance to the facility were associated with lower likelihood of receiving Pr therapy Conclusions: We identified significant differences in the use of Pr as a function of distance to site and race in both a heterogeneous adult patient cohort and a Medicare cohort. As health systems expand Pr therapy capacity, understanding how clinico-demographic factors shape access, even under conditions of broad insurance coverage, may inform future infrastructure planning.
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.