CSPM EDP Sciences logo
Access to submission and peer review system
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 6 (2025) Vis Cancer Med, 6 (2025) 3 References
Open Access
Issue
Vis Cancer Med
Volume 6, 2025
Article Number 3
Number of page(s) 11
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/vcm/2025001
Published online 20 February 2025
  1. Miller KD, Nogueira L, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2019;69:363–385. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Borras JM, Lievens Y, Barton M, et al. How many new cancer patients in Europe will require radiotherapy by 2025? An estro-hero analysis. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2016;119:5–11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baskar R, Lee KA, Yeo R, et al. Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions. International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2012;9:193. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Younkin J, Bues M, Sio T, et al. Multiple energy extraction reduces beam delivery time for a synchrotron-based proton spot-scanning system. Advances in Radiation Oncology. 2018;3:412–420. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Shen J, Taylor P, Vargas C, et al. The status and challenges for prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy treatments in united states proton therapy centers: an NRG oncology practice survey. International Journal of Particle Therapy. 2024;11:100020. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rwigema J-CM, Langendijk JA, van der Laan HP, et al. A model-based approach to predict short-term toxicity benefits with proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2019;104:553–562. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Blanchard P, Wong AJ, Gunn GB, et al. Toward a model-based patient selection strategy for proton therapy: external validation of photon-derived normal tissue complication probability models in a head and neck proton therapy cohort. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2016;121:381–386. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blanchard P, Garden AS, Gunn GB, et al. Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer – a case matched analysis. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2016;120:48–55. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Water TA, Bijl HP, Schilstra C, et al. The potential benefit of radiotherapy with protons in head and neck cancer with respect to normal tissue sparing: a systematic review of literature. The Oncologist. 2011;16:366–377. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lin A, Swisher-McClure S, Millar LB, et al. Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: current applications and future directions. Translational Cancer Research. 2012;1(4). [Google Scholar]
  11. Liu W, Zhang X, Li Y, et al. Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2012;39:1079–1091. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, et al. PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization. Medical Physics. 2013;40:021709. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chiang J, Nathan Y, Daniels T, et al. Proton beam radiotherapy for patients with early-stage and advanced lung cancer: a narrative review with contemporary clinical recommendations. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2021;13:1270. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Paganetti H, Niemierko A, Ancukiewicz M, et al. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2002;53:407–421. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Unkelbach J, Botas P, Giantsoudi D, et al. Reoptimization of intensity modulated proton therapy plans based on linear energy transfer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2016;96:1097–1106. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Paganetti H, Simone II CB, Bosch W, et al. NRG oncology white paper on the relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2025;121(1):202–217. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Wang L, Wang X, Li Y, et al. Human papillomavirus status and the relative biological effectiveness of proton radiotherapy in head and neck cancer cells. Head & Neck. 2017;39:708–715. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wang L, Fossati P, Paganetti H, et al. The biological basis for enhanced effects of proton radiation therapy relative to photon radiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. International Journal of Particle Therapy. 2021;8:3–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Yepes P, Adair A, Frank SJ, et al. Fixed-versus variable-RBE computations for intensity modulated proton therapy. Advances in Radiation Oncology. 2019;4:156–167. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Von Sonntag C. The chemical basis of radiation biology. Taylor & Francis, London, New York, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  21. von Sonntag C. Free-radical-induced DNA damage as approached by quantum-mechanical and Monte Carlo calculations: an overview from the standpoint of an experimentalist. In: Sabin JR, editor. Advances in quantum chemistry, vol. 52; 2007. pp. 5–20. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hirayama R, Ito A, Tomita M, et al. Contributions of direct and indirect actions in cell killing by high-LET radiations. Radiation Research. 2009;171:212–218. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ito A, Nakano H, Kusano Y, et al. Contribution of indirect action to radiation-induced mammalian cell inactivation: dependence on photon energy and heavy-ion LET. Radiation Research. 2006;165:703–712. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2014;59:R419. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cao W, Khabazian A, Yepes PP, et al. Linear energy transfer incorporated intensity modulated proton therapy optimization. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2017;63:015013. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Niemierko A, Schuemann J, Niyazi M, et al. Brain necrosis in adult patients after proton therapy: is there evidence for dependency on linear energy transfer? International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2021;109:109–119. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gentile MS, Yeap BY, Paganetti H, et al. Brainstem injury in pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors treated with proton beam therapy and associated dosimetric factors. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2018;100:719–729. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Peeler CR, Mirkovic D, Titt U, et al. Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2016;121:395–401. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Underwood TS, Grassberger C, Bass R, et al. Asymptomatic late-phase radiographic changes among chest-wall patients are associated with a proton RBE exceeding 1.1. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2018;101:809–819. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Bolsi A, Placidi L, Pica A, et al. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy for the treatment of craniopharyngioma complicated with radiation-induced cerebral vasculopathies: a dosimetric and linear energy transfer (LET) evaluation. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2020;149:197–204. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ödén J, Toma‐Dasu I, Witt Nyström P, et al. Spatial correlation of linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness with suspected treatment‐related toxicities following proton therapy for intracranial tumors. Medical Physics. 2020;47:342–351. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Eulitz J, Lutz B, Wohlfahrt P, et al. A Monte Carlo based radiation response modelling framework to assess variability of clinical RBE in proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2019;64:225020. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Bauer J, Bahn E, Harrabi S, et al. How can scanned proton beam treatment planning for low‐grade glioma cope with increased distal RBE and locally increased radiosensitivity for late MR‐detected brain lesions? Medical Physics. 2021;48:1497–1507. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Bahn E, Bauer J, Harrabi S, et al. Late contrast enhancing brain lesions in proton-treated patients with low-grade glioma: clinical evidence for increased periventricular sensitivity and variable RBE. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2020;107:571–578. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Marteinsdottir M, Wang C-C, McNamara AL, et al. The impact of variable RBE in proton therapy for left-sided breast cancer when estimating normal tissue complications in the heart and lung. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2021;66(3):035023. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhang YY, Huo WL, Goldberg SI, et al. Brain-specific relative biological effectiveness of protons based on long-term outcome of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2021;110:984–992. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Engeseth GM, He R, Mirkovic D, et al. Mixed effect modeling of dose and linear energy transfer correlations with brain image changes after intensity modulated proton therapy for skull base head and neck cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2021;111:684–692. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Garbacz M, Cordoni FG, Durante M, et al. Study of relationship between dose, LET and the risk of brain necrosis after proton therapy for skull base tumors. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2021;163:143–149. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang CC, McNamara AL, Shin J, et al. End-of-range radiobiological effect on rib fractures in patients receiving proton therapy for breast cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2020;107:449–454. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Yang Y, Vargas CE, Bhangoo RS, et al. Exploratory investigation of dose-linear energy transfer (LET) volume histogram (DLVH) for adverse events study in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2021;110:1189–1199. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Yang Y, Muller OM, Shiraishi S, et al. Empirical relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for osteoradionecrosis (ORN) at the mandible in head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT): a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022;12:843175. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Yang Y, Patel SH, Bridhikitti J, et al. Exploratory study of seed spots analysis to characterize dose and linear-energy-transfer effect in adverse event initialization of pencil-beam-scanning proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2022;49:6237–6252. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Bertolet A, Abolfath R, Carlson DJ, et al. Correlation of LET with MRI changes in brain and potential implications for normal tissue complication probability for patients with meningioma treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2022;112:237–246. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wilkens J, Oelfke U. A phenomenological model for the relative biological effectiveness in therapeutic proton beams. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2004;49:2811. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Carabe A, Moteabbed M, Depauw N, et al. Range uncertainty in proton therapy due to variable biological effectiveness. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2012;57:1159–1172. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wedenberg M, Lind BK, Hårdemark B. A model for the relative biological effectiveness of protons: the tissue specific parameter α/β of photons is a predictor for the sensitivity to LET changes. Acta Oncologica. 2013;52:580–588. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. McNamara AL, Schuemann J, Paganetti H. A phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (RBE) model for proton therapy based on all published in vitro cell survival data. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2015;60:8399–8416. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hawkins RB. A microdosimetric-kinetic model for the effect of non-poisson distribution of lethal lesions on the variation of RBE with LET. Radiation Research. 2003;160:61–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schulz-Ertner D, Karger CP, Feuerhake A, et al. Effectiveness of carbon ion radiotherapy in the treatment of skull-base chordomas. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2007;68:449–457. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Elsässer T, Scholz M. Cluster effects within the local effect model. Radiation Research. 2007;167:319–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Elsässer T, Krämer M, Scholz M. Accuracy of the local effect model for the prediction of biologic effects of carbon ion beams in vitro and in vivo. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2008;71:866–872. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Elsässer T, Weyrather WK, Friedrich T, et al. Quantification of the relative biological effectiveness for ion beam radiotherapy: direct experimental comparison of proton and carbon ion beams and a novel approach for treatment planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2010;78:1177–1183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Carlson DJ, Stewart RD, Semenenko VA, et al. Combined use of Monte Carlo DNA damage simulations and deterministic repair models to examine putative mechanisms of cell killing. Radiation Research. 2008;169:447–459. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Stewart RD, Carlson DJ, Butkus MP, et al. A comparison of mechanism‐inspired models for particle relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Medical Physics. 2018;45:e925–e952. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Paganetti H. Mechanisms and review of clinical evidence of variations in relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2022;112:222–236. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Machtay M, Moughan J, Trotti A, et al. Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2008;26:3582–3589. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Dornfeld K, Simmons JR, Karnell L, et al. Radiation doses to structures within and adjacent to the larynx are correlated with long-term diet- and speech-related quality of life. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2007;68:750–757. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Eisbruch A, Schwartz M, Rasch C, et al. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2004;60:1425–1439. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilkens JJ, Oelfke U. Analytical linear energy transfer calculations for proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2003;30:806–815. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wilkens JJ, Oelfke U. Three-dimensional LET calculations for treatment planning of proton therapy. Zeitschrift für medizinische Physik. 2004;14:41–46. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  61. Sanchez-Parcerisa D, Cortés-Giraldo MA, Dolney D, et al. Analytical calculation of proton linear energy transfer in voxelized geometries including secondary protons. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2016;61:1705–1721. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Marsolat F, De Marzi L, Pouzoulet F, et al. Analytical linear energy transfer model including secondary particles: calculations along the central axis of the proton pencil beam. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2016;61:740–757. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Hirayama S, Matsuura T, Ueda H, et al. An analytical dose-averaged LET calculation algorithm considering the off-axis LET enhancement by secondary protons for spot-scanning proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2018;45:3404–3416. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Deng W, Ding X, Younkin J, et al. New hybrid 3d analytical linear energy transfer (LET) calculation algorithm based on the pre-calculated data from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2019;105(1):715–716. [Google Scholar]
  65. Deng W, Ding X, Younkin JE, et al. Hybrid 3d analytical linear energy transfer calculation algorithm based on precalculated data from Monte Carlo simulations. Medical Physics. 2020;47:745–752. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Younkin JE, Morales DH, Shen J, et al. Clinical validation of a ray-casting analytical dose engine for spot scanning proton delivery systems. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. 2019;18:1533033819887182. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Grassberger C, Paganetti H. Elevated LET components in clinical proton beams. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2011;56:6677. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K, et al. Geant4-a simulation toolkit. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment. 2003;506:250–303. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  69. Cortés-Giraldo MA, Carabe A. A critical study of different Monte Carlo scoring methods of dose average linear-energy-transfer maps calculated in voxelized geometries irradiated with clinical proton beams. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2015;60:2645–2669. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Granville DA, Sawakuchi GO. Comparison of linear energy transfer scoring techniques in Monte Carlo simulations of proton beams. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2015;60:N283–N291. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Dahle TJ, Rykkelid AM, Stokkevåg CH, et al. Monte Carlo simulations of a low energy proton beamline for radiobiological experiments. Acta Oncologica. 2017;56:779–786. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Feng H, Holmes J, Vora S, et al. Modelling small block aperture in an in-house developed GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo-based dose engine for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2024;69:35003. [Google Scholar]
  73. Battistoni G, Broggi F, Brugger M, et al. The fluka code and its use in hadron therapy. Nuovo Cimento Della Societa Italiana Di Fisica C-Colloquia on Physics. 2008;31:69–75. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kozlowska WS, Böhlen TT, Cuccagna C, et al. Fluka particle therapy tool for Monte Carlo independent calculation of scanned proton and carbon ion beam therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2019;64(7):075012. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Perl J, Shin J, Schümann J, et al. Topas: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. Medical Physics. 2012;39:6818–6837. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Holmes J, Feng H, Zhang L, et al. Fast Monte Carlo dose calculation in proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2024;69(17):17TR01. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  77. Tseung HWC, Ma J, Beltran C. A fast GPU-based Monte Carlo simulation of proton transport with detailed modeling of nonelastic interactions. Medical Physics. 2015;42:2967–2978. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Jia X, Schümann J, Paganetti H, et al. GPU-based fast Monte Carlo dose calculation for proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2012;57:7783–7797. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Schiavi A, Senzacqua M, Pioli S, et al. Fred: a GPU-accelerated fast-Monte Carlo code for rapid treatment plan recalculation in ion beam therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2017;62:7482–7504. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Souris K, Lee JA, Sterpin E. Fast multipurpose Monte Carlo simulation for proton therapy using multi- and many-core cpu architectures. Medical Physics. 2016;43:1700–1712. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Deng W, Younkin J, Souris K, et al. Integrating an open source Monte Carlo code “mcsquare” for clinical use in intensity‐modulated proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2020;47:2558–2574. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Shan J, Feng H, Morales DH, et al. Virtual particle Monte Carlo: a new concept to avoid simulating secondary particles in proton therapy dose calculation. Medical Physics. 2022;49:6666–6683. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Saini J, Maes D, Egan A, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial proton spot scanning monte-carlo dose algorithm: comparisons against measurements and simulations. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2017;62:7659–7681. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Lin LY, Huang S, Kang ML, et al. A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton Monte Carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2017;18:44–49. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  85. Chang CW, Huang S, Harms J, et al. A standardized commissioning framework of Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms for proton pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems. Medical Physics. 2020;47:1545–1557. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Liu W, Schild S, Chang J, et al. A novel 4-d robust optimization mitigates interplay effect in intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2015;93(3):S218. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  87. Holmes J, Shen J, Shan J, et al. Evaluation and second check of a commercial Monte Carlo dose engine for small‐field apertures in pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2022;49:3497–3506. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Feng H, Patel S, Wong W, et al. GPU‐accelerated Monte Carlo‐based online adaptive proton therapy: a feasibility study. Medical Physics. 2022;49:3550–3563. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Buti G, Souris K, Montero AMB, et al. Towards fast and robust 4d optimization for moving tumors with scanned proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2019;46:5434–5443. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Ma J, Tseung H, Herman MG, et al. A robust intensity modulated proton therapy optimizer based on Monte Carlo dose calculation. Medical Physics. 2018;45:4045–4054. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  91. Souris K, Montero AB, Janssens G, et al. Technical note: Monte Carlo methods to comprehensively evaluate the robustness of 4d treatments in proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2019;46:4676–4684. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Liu W, Patel SH, Shen JJ, et al. Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer. Practical Radiation Oncology. 2016;6:e269–e275. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Liu C, Yu NY, Shan J, et al. Treatment planning system (TPS) approximations matter – comparing intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan quality and robustness between a commercial and an in‐house developed tps for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Medical Physics. 2019;46:4755–4762. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Tang XY, Tseung HWC, Moseley D, et al. Deep learning based linear energy transfer calculation for proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2024;69(11):115058. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  95. Zhang L, Holmes J, Liu Z, et al. Beam mask and sliding window‐facilitated deep learning‐based accurate and efficient dose prediction for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2024;51:1484–1498. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Quan E, Liu W, Wu R, et al. Preliminary evaluation of multifield and single‐field optimization for the treatment planning of spot‐scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer. Medical Physics. 2013;40:81709. [Google Scholar]
  97. Feng H, Shan J, Vargas CE, et al. Online adaptive proton therapy facilitated by artificial intelligence-based auto segmentation in pencil beam scanning proton therapy: prostate OAPT in PBSPT. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2024; In Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.09.032. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Hahn C, Heuchel L, Oden J, et al. Comparing biological effectiveness guided plan optimization strategies for cranial proton therapy: potential and challenges. Radiation Oncology. 2022;17:169. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  99. Bassler N, Jäkel O, Søndergaard CS, et al. Dose-and LET-painting with particle therapy. Acta Oncologica. 2010;49:1170–1176. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Penoncello G, Robertson D, Bhangoo R, et al. History and future of image-guided radiation therapy in abdominal cancer. In: Principles and Practice of Image-Guided Abdominal Radiation Therapy. Bristol, UK: IOP Publishing; 2023. p. 2-1–2-27. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  101. Harrison N, Kang M, Liu R, et al. A novel inverse algorithm to solve the integrated optimization of dose, dose rate, and linear energy transfer of proton flash therapy with sparse filters. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2024;119:957–967. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Giantsoudi D, Grassberger C, Craft D, et al. Linear energy transfer-guided optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy: feasibility study and clinical potential. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2013;87:216–222. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Noda K, et al. Treatment planning of intensity modulated composite particle therapy with dose and linear energy transfer optimization. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2017;62:5180. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Liu C, Patel SH, Shan J, et al. Robust optimization for intensity modulated proton therapy to redistribute high linear energy transfer from nearby critical organs to tumors in head and neck cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2020;107:181–193. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. McIntyre M, Wilson P, Gorayski P, et al. A systematic review of LET-guided treatment plan optimisation in proton therapy: identifying the current state and future needs. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15:4268. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Bai X, Lim G, Wieser H-P, et al. Robust optimization to reduce the impact of biological effect variation from physical uncertainties in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2019;64:025004. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Traneus E, Ödén J. Introducing proton track-end objectives in intensity modulated proton therapy optimization to reduce linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness in critical structures. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2019;103:747–757. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Grassberger C, Trofimov A, Lomax A, et al. Variations in linear energy transfer within clinical proton therapy fields and the potential for biological treatment planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2011;80:1559–1566. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. An Y, Shan J, Patel SH, et al. Robust intensity-modulated proton therapy to reduce high linear energy transfer in organs at risk. Medical Physics. 2017;44:6138–6147. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Wan Chan Tseung HS, Ma J, Kreofsky CR, et al. Clinically applicable Monte Carlo-based biological dose optimization for the treatment of head and neck cancers with spot-scanning proton therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2016;95:1535–1543. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Zaghian M, Cao W, Liu W, et al. Comparison of linear and nonlinear programming approaches for “worst case dose” and “minmax” robust optimization of intensity‐modulated proton therapy dose distributions. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2017;18:15–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Heuchel L, Hahn C, Pawelke J, et al. Clinical use and future requirements of relative biological effectiveness: survey among all european proton therapy centres. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2022;172:134–139. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  113. Liu W. System and method for robust intensity-modulated proton therapy planning; U.S. Patent 10,369,381. Published 2019 August 6. [Google Scholar]
  114. Li H, Zhang X, Park P, et al. Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy to account for anatomy changes in lung cancer patients. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2015;114:367–372. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  115. Liu W, Mohan R, Zhang X, et al. Effectiveness of robust optimization in oropharynx IMPT planning. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2013;87(2):S443. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  116. Anand A, Bues M, Haddock M, et al. Robust scanned proton treatment plans provide large reductions in bone marrow exposure for pelvic radiation therapy for anal cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2014;90(1):S396. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  117. An Y, Liang J, Liu W. System and method for novel chance-constrained optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning to account for range and patient setup uncertainties; U.S. Patent 10,328,282. Published 2019 June 25. [Google Scholar]
  118. Li H, Peter P, Chang J, et al. Robust optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy reduces dose variation due to setup uncertainty and anatomy change. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2014;90(1):S143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  119. Park P, Cheung J, Zhu X, et al. Statistical assessment of proton treatment plans under setup and range uncertainties. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2013;86:1007–1013. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Zaghian M, Lim G, Liu W, et al. An automatic approach for satisfying dose-volume constraints in linear fluence map optimization for IMPT. Journal of Cancer Therapy. 2014;5:198–207. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  121. Tryggestad E, Liu W, Pepin M, et al. Managing treatment-related uncertainties in proton beam radiotherapy for gastrointestinal cancers. Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. 2020;11:212. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Shan J, Yang Y, Schild S, et al. Intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) interplay effect evaluation of asymmetric breathing with simultaneous uncertainty considerations in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer. Medical Physics. 2020;47:5428–5440. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Liu W, Liao Z, Schild SE, et al. Impact of respiratory motion on worst-case scenario optimized intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancers. Practical Radiation Oncology. 2015;5:e77–e86. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. An Y, Liang JM, Schild SE, et al. Robust treatment planning with conditional value at risk chance constraints in intensity- modulated proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2017;44:28–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Chen W, Unkelbach J, Trofimov A, et al. Including robustness in multi-criteria optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2012;57:591–608. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Fredriksson A, Forsgren A, Hårdemark B. Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2011;38:1672–1684. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Liu CB, Schild SE, Chang JY, et al. Impact of spot size and spacing on the quality of robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy plans for lung cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2018;101:479–489. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Liu W. Robustness quantification and worst-case robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy particle radiotherapy. New Delhi: Springer India; 2016. pp. 139–155. [Google Scholar]
  129. Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, et al. Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers. Medical Physics. 2013;40:051711–051718. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Liu W, Li Y, Li X, et al. Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques. Medical Physics. 2012;39:3089–3101. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Liu W, Mohan R, Park P, et al. Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers. Practical Radiation Oncology. 2014;4:384–391. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Liu W, Schild SE, Chang JY, et al. Exploratory study of 4d versus 3d robust optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2016;95:523–533. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. Pflugfelder D, Wilkens J, Oelfke U. Worst case optimization: a method to account for uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2008;53:1689. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Shan J, An Y, Bues M, et al. Robust optimization in IMPT using quadratic objective functions to account for the minimum mu constraint. Medical Physics. 2018;45:460–469. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. Shan J, Sio T, Liu C, et al. A novel and individualized robust optimization method using normalized dose interval volume constraints (NDIVC) for intensity‐modulated proton radiotherapy. Medical Physics. 2019;46:382–393. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Unkelbach J, Alber M, Bangert M, et al. Robust radiotherapy planning. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2018;63:22TR02. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Unkelbach J, Bortfeld T, Martin BC, et al. Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning. Medical Physics. 2009;36:149–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Unkelbach J, Chan TC, Bortfeld T. Accounting for range uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2007;52:2755. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Liu W, Schild S, Chang J, et al. Impact of spot size and spacing on the quality of robustly-optimized intensity-modulated proton therapy plans for lung cancer. Medical Physics. 2016;43:3886–3887. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  140. Liu W, Patel S, Shen J, et al. Plan robustness study of volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2015;93(3):E567–E568. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  141. Feng H, Shan J, Anderson J, et al. Per‐voxel constraints to minimize hot spots in linear energy transfer‐guided robust optimization for base of skull head and neck cancer patients in IMPT. Medical Physics. 2022;49:632–647. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Feng H, Shan J, Ashman J, et al. 4d robust optimization in small spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for distal esophageal carcinoma. Medical Physics. 2021;48:4636–4647. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Liu R, Charyyev S, Wahl N, et al. An integrated physical optimization framework for proton stereotactic body radiation therapy flash treatment planning allows dose, dose rate, and linear energy transfer optimization using patient-specific ridge filters. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2023;116:949–959. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Tseung HSWC, Ma J, Kreofsky CR, et al. Clinically applicable Monte Carlo–based biological dose optimization for the treatment of head and neck cancers with spot-scanning proton therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2016;95:1535–1543. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Bai XM, Lim G, Grosshans D, et al. A biological effect-guided optimization approach using beam distal-edge avoidance for intensity-modulated proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2020;47:3816–3825. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Gu W, Ruan D, Zou W, et al. Linear energy transfer weighted beam orientation optimization for intensity‐modulated proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2021;48:57–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Bai X. Linear energy transfer (LET)-guided optimization incorporating biological effectiveness for intensity-modulated proton therapy. PhD dissertation. University of Houston; 2019. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses:28180887. [Google Scholar]
  148. Cao W, Lim G, Lee A, et al. Uncertainty incorporated beam angle optimization for IMPT treatment planning. Medical Physics. 2012;39:5248–5256. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. Liu C, Sio TT, Deng W, et al. Small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a dosimetric comparative study. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2018;19:140–148. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. Liu C, Bhangoo RS, Sio TT, et al. Dosimetric comparison of distal esophageal carcinoma plans for patients treated with small-spot intensity-modulated proton versus volumetric-modulated arc therapies. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2019;20:15–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Feng H, Sio TT, Rule WG, et al. Beam angle comparison for distal esophageal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2020;21:141–152. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  152. Yang Y, Rwigema JM, Vargas C, et al. Technical note: investigation of dose and LET(d) effect to rectum and bladder by using non-straight laterals in prostate cancer receiving proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2022;49:7428–7437. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  153. Shang H, Pu Y, Chen Z, et al. Impact of multiple beams on plan quality, linear energy transfer distribution, and plan robustness of intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancer. ACS Sensors. 2020;6:408–417. [Google Scholar]
  154. Carabe-Fernandez A, Bertolet-Reina A, Karagounis I, et al. Is there a role for arcing techniques in proton therapy? The British Journal of Radiology. 2020;93:20190469. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  155. Toussaint L, Indelicato DJ, Holgersen KS, et al. Towards proton arc therapy: physical and biologically equivalent doses with increasing number of beams in pediatric brain irradiation. Acta Oncologica. 2019;58:1451–1456. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  156. Li X, Ding X, Zheng W, et al. Linear energy transfer incorporated spot-scanning proton arc therapy optimization: a feasibility study. Frontiers in Oncology. 2021;11:698537. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  157. Bertolet A, Carabe A. Proton monoenergetic arc therapy (PMAT) to enhance LETd within the target. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2020;65:165006. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  158. Li X, Liu G, Janssens G, et al. The first prototype of spot-scanning proton arc treatment delivery. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2019;137:130–136. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  159. Giantsoudi D, Sethi RV, Yeap BY, et al. Incidence of cns injury for a cohort of 111 patients treated with proton therapy for medulloblastoma: LET and RBE associations for areas of injury. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2016;95:287–296. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  160. Eulitz J, Troost EGC, Raschke F, et al. Predicting late magnetic resonance image changes in glioma patients after proton therapy. Acta Oncologica. 2019;58:1536–1539. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  161. Bertolet A, Cortés-Giraldo MA, Souris K, et al. A kernel-based algorithm for the spectral fluence of clinical proton beams to calculate dose-averaged LET and other dosimetric quantities of interest. Medical Physics. 2020;47:2495–2505. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  162. Chen J, Yang Y, Feng H, et al. Robust optimization for spot scanning proton therapy based on dose-linear energy transfer (LET) volume constraints; International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2024; In Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.11.068. [Google Scholar]
  163. Shan J, Liu W, Au Y, et al. Dose interval volume constraint based robust optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2017;44:2994–2995. [Google Scholar]
  164. Zhang P, Fan N, Shan J, et al. Mixed integer programming with dose-volume constraints in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2017;18:29–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  165. Giantsoudi D, Adams J, MacDonald S, et al. Can differences in linear energy transfer and thus relative biological effectiveness compromise the dosimetric advantage of intensity-modulated proton therapy as compared to passively scattered proton therapy? Acta Oncologica. 2018;57:1259–1264. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  166. Carabe A, Espana S, Grassberger C, et al. Clinical consequences of relative biological effectiveness variations in proton radiotherapy of the prostate, brain and liver. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2013;58:2103. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  167. Giovannini G, Böhlen T, Cabal G, et al. Variable RBE in proton therapy: comparison of different model predictions and their influence on clinical-like scenarios. Radiation Oncology. 2016;11:1–16. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  168. Abolfath R, Peeler C, Mirkovic D, et al. A DNA damage multiscale model for NTCP in proton and hadron therapy. Medical Physics. 2020;47:2005–2012. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  169. Deng W, Yang Y, Liu C, et al. A critical review of LET-based intensity-modulated proton therapy plan evaluation and optimization for head and neck cancer management. International Journal of Particle Therapy. 2021;8:36–49. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.