Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Cancers · October 26, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background/Objectives: Limited data exists comparing photon-based intensity-modulated (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) against intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) when treating pelvic or para-aortic nodal recurrences of prostate cancer following prior irradiation. The aim of this study was to evaluate dosimetric differences between VMAT and IMPT when treating nodal recurrences in the re-irradiation setting. Methods: VMAT and IMPT plans for 15 patients with node-recurrent disease were evaluated. Prescription doses to the whole pelvis and prostate bed planning target volumes (PTVs) from the initial VMAT plans were 45–50.4 Gy and 66.6–72 Gy, respectively. IMPT re-irradiation prescription doses were 45–53.75 Gy radiobiological equivalent (GyE) (proton radiobiological effective dose 1.1) to at-risk pelvic and para-aortic nodal chains and 60–64 GyE to gross nodal disease. For re-planning and comparative study purposes, clinical target volume (CTV) prescription doses were standardized to 50.4 Gy for the regional pelvic and para-aortic nodes, and 63 Gy for the grossly involved nodal disease. Organ-at-risk (OAR) contours were standardized and re-irradiation plans were generated on Raystation. Student’s t-test was used to compare CTV coverage and dose to OARs. Results: CTV coverage was met for all plans, with 99% of CTVs receiving ≥99% of prescription doses. Composite analysis demonstrated IMPT not only sustained dosimetric benefits in the re-irradiation setting for all OARs except sigmoid but also conferred significant advantages. Select endpoints with significant differences on composite analysis included bowel cavity V45Gy, left kidney V18Gy and mean dose, right kidney V18Gy and mean dose, and integral dose to ‘Body-CTV’. Conclusions: Composite analysis of the initial treatment and re-irradiation plans showed that IMPT delivered and maintained significant OAR dose reductions in the nodal re-irradiation setting, potentially decreasing the risk of long-term toxicities. This provides a rationale for the utilization of IMPT in this clinical setting.