Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42890210›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2026

AI in Proton Therapy Treatment Planning: A Narrative Review.

Yuzhen Ding, Hongying Feng, Martin Bues, Mirek Fatyga, Tianming Liu, Wei Zhang, Thomas J Whitaker, Haibo Lin, Nancy Y Lee, Charles B Simone and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Yuzhen DingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Hongying FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Martin BuesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Mirek FatygaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Tianming LiuSchool of Computing, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Computer & Cyber Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
Thomas J WhitakerDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77054, USA.
Haibo LinNew York Proton Center, New York City, NY 10035, USA.
Nancy Y LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY 10065, USA.
Charles B SimoneNew York Proton Center, New York City, NY 10035, USA.
Samir H PatelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Daniel J MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Steven J FrankDivision of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77054, USA.
Sujay A VoraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Jonathan B AshmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
Wei LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Proton therapy provides superior dose conformity compared to photon therapy, but its treatment planning is challenged by sensitivity to anatomical changes, setup/range uncertainties, and computational complexity. This narrative review evaluates the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in improving proton therapy treatment planning, with emphasis on proton-specific requirements for dose-calculation accuracy, robustness, and adaptive decision-making. Materials and methods: Recent studies on AI applications across the proton therapy planning workflow, including imaging, registration, segmentation, contour assessment, dose prediction/denoising, optimization, adaptive therapy, and large language model (LLM) and multimodal AI were reviewed and summarized by application domain and validation strategy. Both proton-therapy-specific studies and selected general radiotherapy AI studies were included when they introduced methods relevant to proton treatment planning, with attention to the additional validation needed for proton therapy. Results: AI has shown promise in enhancing imaging for dose calculation, automating contouring and contour assessment, accelerating dose calculation, predicting and denoising dose distributions, supporting robust optimization, and improving adaptive planning workflows. Compared with photon therapy, AI tools in proton therapy require more stringent evaluation because errors in AI-generated images, deformation fields, contours, dose estimates, or optimization outputs may propagate into water-equivalent path length, range uncertainty, scenario-specific dose distributions, and adaptive replanning decisions. Emerging applications, including LLMs and multimodal foundation models, may further support clinical-context integration, treatment-planning documentation, plan review, and workflow coordination. Key limitations include data scarcity, limited generalizability, physical interpretability, uncertainty management, lack of standardized proton-specific benchmarks, and limited prospective validation. Conclusion: AI is emerging as a key enabler of efficient, consistent, and patient-specific proton therapy treatment planning. Clinical translation will require interpretable and physics-aware models, multi-institutional validation, workflow-level testing, and evaluation using proton-specific endpoints such as HU/RSP accuracy, range error, dose-calculation accuracy, robustness, deliverability, and adaptive decision consistency.

Indexed as

adaptive radiation therapyArtificial intelligencelarge language modelproton therapy

Identifiers

PMID42890210
PMCPMC13671039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.