Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 50 references

A Comparative Dosimetric Study of Proton and Photon Therapy in Stereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation for Ventricular Tachycardia

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Proton therapy delivers the same arrhythmia-targeted dose as photon therapy while significantly reducing radiation to the heart, lungs, and esophagus in stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation for ventricular tachycardia.

desk verdict First cohort-level proton-vs-photon STAR comparison, but the paper's own target coverage data contradict its 'equivalent coverage' conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18433 v2 pith:67AS6X67 submitted 2025-01-30 physics.med-ph

Keyur D. Shah , Chih-Wei Chang , Pretesh Patel , Sibo Tian , Yuan Shao , Kristin A Higgins , Yinan Wang , Justin Roper
show 3 more authors
Jun Zhou Zhen Tian Xiaofeng Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords VentricularTachycardiaProtonTherapyStereotacticArrhythmiaRadioablationDosimetricComparisonOrganatRiskSparingBraggPeakRobustOptimizationTreatmentPlanning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that, for stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) of ventricular tachycardia, proton therapy can deliver the same prescribed dose to the arrhythmia substrate as photon therapy while exposing the heart, lungs, esophagus, spinal cord, and stomach to substantially lower radiation. The authors generated retrospective proton plans for a cohort of patients who had already received photon STAR, using robust optimization and scaling the proton plans to match the mean target dose of the photon plans. On every meaningful organ-at-risk metric, protons came out lower—mean heart dose fell from 5.5 to 3.6 Gy, mean esophageal dose from 1.6 to 0.3 Gy—without a statistically significant loss of target coverage. The interest for a general reader is that lower organ-at-risk doses should translate into fewer treatment-related complications such as esophagitis, pneumonitis, and long-term cardiac damage, making a promising non-invasive treatment safer and potentially available to sicker patients.

What carries the argument

The central physical mechanism is the proton Bragg peak: protons deposit most of their energy at a controllable depth and have essentially no exit dose, so beams can be aimed so that the high-dose region stops within or just past the target. On top of that, the study's planning methodology is the other load-bearing piece: proton plans were generated with robust optimization to account for range and setup uncertainties (±3.5% range margin), and they were normalized by scaling to the mean target volume dose of the corresponding photon plans, a step intended to put the two modalities on equal footing for a fair dose comparison.

What would settle it

Re-plan the same cohort with both modalities using identical, pre-registered optimization objectives (same target dose normalization, same organ-at-risk constraints, same number of beams or arcs, no manual fine-tuning), then compare DVH metrics; if the significant organ-at-risk differences persist under this symmetric planning protocol, the claim is supported, and if they shrink to insignificance, the reported advantage is a planning artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that when proton STAR plans are compared with clinically delivered photon VMAT plans for the same patient cohort, mean doses to the heart, normal heart (excluding the arrhythmia substrate), lungs, esophagus, spinal cord, stomach, and cardiac devices are all significantly lower for protons, while target coverage metrics D95 and conformity index are statistically equivalent. For example, whole-heart mean dose was 3.6 ± 1.5 Gy for protons versus 5.5 ± 2.0 Gy for photons (p<0.001), and normal-heart V5Gy was 15.7% versus 32.5% (p<0.001). The authors attribute this to the proton Bragg peak, which stops the beam distal to the target and eliminates much of the low- and intermediate-dose bath that photon arcs inevitably create. They conclude that proton therapy provides a dosimetric advantage in STAR that could reduce treatment-related toxicity.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison is fair only if the retrospectively planned proton beams were optimized with the same effort and objectives as the clinically delivered photon plans; if protons got more favorable normalization or optimization choices, the organ-at-risk reductions might be an artifact of planning rather than an inherent physical advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Proton STAR could reduce the risk of esophagitis and pneumonitis in VT patients, who often have compromised heart and lung function.
  • Lower mean heart dose may lower the risk of long-term radiation-induced cardiac dysfunction, relevant for patients with prior radiation exposure or structural heart disease.
  • The improved organ-at-risk sparing provides room for dose escalation to the arrhythmia substrate, potentially improving arrhythmia control.
  • Pediatric VT patients, who are most vulnerable to late radiation effects, could specifically benefit from proton STAR's reduced low-dose bath.
  • Patient selection could become anatomy-driven: patients with the arrhythmia substrate close to the esophagus, stomach, or spinal cord may be preferentially referred for protons.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not model normal tissue complication probability; whether the observed dose reductions translate into clinically meaningful toxicity differences depends on the steepness of the dose-response curves, which such modeling could quantify.
  • The proton plans were normalized to mean target dose; normalizing instead to the same V25Gy or D95 would change the comparison and could reduce the apparent organ-at-risk advantage, so the magnitude of the benefit is partly normalization-dependent.
  • Proton variable relative biological effectiveness at the distal edge of the Bragg peak could raise the effective dose to organs just beyond the target (e.g., esophagus, heart), partially offsetting the physical dose advantage.
  • Cardiac substructures (conduction system, coronary arteries) were not contoured; substructure-sparing analysis could reveal whether the whole-heart dose reduction translates into protection of arrhythmia-relevant sites.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a retrospective dosimetric comparison of proton versus photon stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) for ventricular tachycardia (VT) in a cohort initially described as 34 patients. Proton plans were generated retrospectively with robust optimization and scaled to match the mean target dose of the clinical photon VMAT plans. Dosimetric metrics for the ventricular arrhythmogenic substrate (VAS) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared with paired tests and Bonferroni correction. The authors conclude that proton therapy provides significant OAR sparing while maintaining equivalent target coverage, and they discuss clinical implications, patient selection, and limitations.

Significance. If the results were reliable, the study would be a useful planning-level contribution to the emerging STAR literature, providing quantitative evidence for modality selection and supporting ongoing proton-STAR trials. The statistical approach is generally appropriate: normality checks, paired tests, and Bonferroni correction are correctly described. The use of robust optimization for proton plans and scaling to the photon mean target dose are sensible methodological choices that partially address fairness. However, the central claim of 'equivalent target coverage' is directly contradicted by the study's own target-coverage metrics, and several data inconsistencies reduce confidence in the reported OAR advantages. The paper would be clinically valuable only after a careful data audit and reanalysis.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2.1, Table 2, Abstract, Conclusion] The claim of 'equivalent target coverage' is contradicted by the reported VAS metrics: proton V25Gy is 85.6±10.2% vs 93.0±8.3% (p<0.001) and D99 is 21.4±2.8 Gy vs 22.6±2.4 Gy (p=0.022). These are the paper's own coverage metrics, so the data as reported show a significant coverage trade-off. The abstract and conclusion must be revised, or the analysis must be re-run with corrected data.
  2. [§2.3 and §2.4] The comparison is asymmetric: proton plans were generated with robust optimization and scaled to match the mean target dose, while the photon VMAT plans were the delivered clinical plans and were not reoptimized under comparable objectives. This confounds modality with optimization choices, making the observed OAR reductions (e.g., heart Dmean 3.6 vs 5.5 Gy) not cleanly attributable to proton physics. The authors should either reoptimize photon plans on the same footing or explicitly frame the results as a planning-workflow comparison with this limitation prominently stated.
  3. [Table 1 vs §3.1, Abstract] The cohort is inconsistently reported: the Abstract says 34 patients, §3.1 says '26 males and 7 females' (33 total), and Table 1 says 'Number of Patients 33'. Moreover, the median VAS volume is 29.7 cc in §3.1 but 68.25 cc in Table 1. These discrepancies undermine confidence in the data and must be reconciled.
  4. [Abstract vs Table 2] The Abstract reports lungs Dmean as 1.6±1.5 Gy (proton) and 2.1±1.4 Gy (photon), whereas Table 2 reports 0.7±0.6 Gy and 1.2±0.7 Gy for the same metric. At least one of these values is incorrect; the abstract and table must be reconciled before the manuscript can be considered reliable.
  5. [§2.4 vs §3.2.1 and Table 2] The Methods state that target metrics include D98, but the Results and Table 2 report D99. This inconsistency is more than a typo because the choice of quantile affects the reported coverage difference (D99 p=0.022) and the conclusion of equivalence. The authors should specify which quantile was intended and, ideally, report both D98 and D99 consistently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption and §3.3] The spinal cord doses in Figure 3 are reported as '0.3 cGy vs 0.6 Gy' for Dmean; the mixed units are confusing and likely a typo. Please unify to Gy throughout.
  2. [§4 Discussion] The sentence 'with similar CI and dose coverage metrics, including D95 and D98' is internally inconsistent with the significant D99 and V25Gy differences reported in Table 2; please align the wording with the actual results.
  3. [§2.5] The statistical section states p<0.05 as significance level but does not specify the number of comparisons used for the Bonferroni correction or report the adjusted threshold; please provide this detail.
  4. [General] Some reference citations are grouped (e.g., refs 23–26) without specific attribution; consider citing individual references where a specific finding is discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; empirical planning comparison with independent endpoints.

full rationale

The paper is a retrospective dosimetric comparison, not a derivation. Proton plans were generated with robust optimization and scaled to match the mean target volume dose of the photon plans (Section 2.3), but this normalization does not by construction force any of the reported endpoints (D99, V25Gy, OAR Dmean, etc.). The proton OAR reductions are independent outputs of the planning system and are consistent with known proton physics; they are not derived from the matched quantity. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation: the reference list contains no self-citations by the authors, and external benchmarks such as AAPM TG-101 and RTOG 1308 are cited as context, not as substitutes for the dosimetric analysis. The paper's internal inconsistency between the conclusion's 'equivalent target coverage' and its own Table 2 (proton D99 21.4 vs. 22.6 Gy, p=0.022; V25Gy 85.6% vs. 93.0%, p<0.001) is a correctness/consistency concern, not circularity: those numbers are independently optimized outputs and cannot be identical to the planning inputs by definition. Therefore the circularity burden is low and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a dosimetric comparison, not a derivation, so there are no fitted free parameters. It relies on standard clinical treatment planning assumptions: dose calculation accuracy, motion fidelity of average CT, fixed proton RBE, and accurate substrate contours. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption RayStation dose calculation for both proton pencil-beam and photon VMAT is assumed clinically accurate; no independent Monte Carlo or measurement verification is reported.
    The dosimetric comparison relies entirely on the treatment planning system's dose accuracy.
  • domain assumption The average 4DCT image is assumed to adequately represent cardiorespiratory motion for both modalities; proton range uncertainties from motion are presumed controlled by +/-3.5% range margin and robust optimization.
    Proton plans are sensitive to density changes along the beam path; the method does not validate motion robustness beyond optimization settings.
  • domain assumption A constant relative biological effectiveness of 1.1 is assumed for protons, though the authors acknowledge distal-edge RBE uncertainties.
    Dose comparisons ignore potential RBE variations that could increase biological dose at the distal edge.
  • domain assumption The VAS contours derived from electroanatomical mapping fused to CT are assumed accurate and representative of the true arrhythmogenic substrate.
    Target delineation directly affects both coverage and OAR dose comparisons.
  • domain assumption The paired statistical comparisons assume the Shapiro-Wilk normality selection and Bonferroni correction were applied correctly; raw p-values are not reported, making the correction unverifiable.
    The authors state the method but provide only corrected p-values, so the reader cannot check the adjustment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comparative Dosimetric Study of Proton and Photon Therapy in Stereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation for Ventricular Tachycardia." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/67AS6X67

@misc{pith2026250118433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comparative Dosimetric Study of Proton and Photon Therapy in Stereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation for Ventricular Tachycardia},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/67AS6X67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18433}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: VT is a life-threatening arrhythmia commonly treated with catheter ablation; however, some cases remain refractory to conventional treatment. STAR has emerged as a non-invasive option for such patients. While photon-based STAR has shown efficacy, proton therapy offers potential advantages due to its superior dose conformity and sparing of critical OARs, including the heart itself. This study aims to investigate and compare the dosimetry between proton and photon therapy for VT, focusing on target coverage and OAR sparing. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on a cohort of 34 VT patients who received photon STAR. Proton STAR plans were generated using robust optimization in RayStation to deliver the same prescription dose of 25 Gy in a single fraction while minimizing dose to OARs. Dosimetric metrics, including D99, D95, Dmean, and D0.03cc, were extracted for critical OARs and VAS. Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to assess normality, followed by paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for statistical comparisons between modalities, with Bonferroni correction applied for multiple comparisons. Results: Proton and photon plans achieved comparable target coverage, with VAS D95 of 24.1 +/- 1.2 Gy vs. 24.7 +/- 1.0 Gy (p=0.294). Proton therapy significantly reduced OAR doses, including heart Dmean (3.6 +/- 1.5 Gy vs. 5.5 +/- 2.0 Gy, p<0.001), lungs Dmean (1.6 +/- 1.5 Gy vs. 2.1 +/- 1.4 Gy, p<0.001), and esophagus Dmean (0.3 +/- 0.6 Gy vs. 1.6 +/- 1.3 Gy, p<0.001), while maintaining optimal target coverage. Conclusion: Proton therapy for STAR demonstrates significant dosimetric advantages in sparing the heart and other critical OARs compared to photon therapy for VT, while maintaining equivalent target coverage. These findings highlight the potential of proton therapy to reduce treatment-related toxicity and improve outcomes for VT patients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18433 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) comparing proton and photon plans for a representative patient treated with STAR. (a, c) Axial and sagittal views for the proton plan. (b, d) Axial and sagittal views for the photon plan. Contours for the ventricular arrhythmogenic substrate (VAS, blue), heart (crimson), esophagus (dark green), lungs (magenta), and left atrium (yellow) are overlaid. Thicker struct… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) comparing proton and photon plans for a patient with the ventricular arrhythmogenic substrate (VAS) located near the right ventricle. (a, c) Axial and sagittal views for the proton plan. (b, d) Axial and sagittal views for the photon plan. Contours for the VAS (blue), heart (crimson), and right ventricle (bright green) are overlaid. Thicker contour boundaries were… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for a patient with the ventricular arrhythmogenic substrate (VAS) located near the left ventricle. (a, c) Axial and sagittal views for the proton plan. (b, d) Axial and sagittal views for the photon plan. Contours for the VAS (blue), heart (crimson), stomach (purple), and spinal cord (orange) are overlaid, with thicker contour boundaries distinguishing structures … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment of outflow tract tachycardia

    Lerman BB. Mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment of outflow tract tachycardia. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12:597–608

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Structure and function of the ventricular tachycardia isthmus

    Ciaccio EJ, Anter E, Coromilas J, et al. Structure and function of the ventricular tachycardia isthmus. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19:137–153

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Ventricular Tachycardia and Sudden Cardiac Death

    Koplan BA, Stevenson WG. Ventricular Tachycardia and Sudden Cardiac Death. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2009;84:289–297

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Trends and disparities in ventricular tachycardia mortality in the United States

    Ibrahim R, Sroubek J, Nakhla S, et al. Trends and disparities in ventricular tachycardia mortality in the United States. Cardiovasc electrophysiol. 2023;34:465–467

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Radiofrequency catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients without structural heart disease

    Klein LS, Shih HT, Hackett FK, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients without structural heart disease. Circulation. 1992;85:1666–1674

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia

    Stevenson WG, Soejima K. Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia. Circulation. 2007;115:2750–2760

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Catheter ablation of postinfarction ventricular tachycardia: Ten-year trends in utilization, in-hospital complications, and in-hospital mortality in the United States

    Palaniswamy C, Kolte D, Harikrishnan P , et al. Catheter ablation of postinfarction ventricular tachycardia: Ten-year trends in utilization, in-hospital complications, and in-hospital mortality in the United States. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:2056–2063

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Early Mortality After Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With Structural Heart Disease

    Santangeli P , Frankel DS, Tung R, et al. Early Mortality After Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With Structural Heart Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017;69:2105–2115

    work page 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Challenges in Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation: Difficult Substrates and Advanced Ablation Strategies

    Zarębski Ł, Futyma P . Challenges in Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation: Difficult Substrates and Advanced Ablation Strategies. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med. 2024;26:111–120

    2024

  2. [10]

    Noninvasive Cardiac Radiation for Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia

    Cuculich PS, Schill MR, Kashani R, et al. Noninvasive Cardiac Radiation for Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2325–2336

    2017

  3. [11]

    Stereotactic Radioablation for Treatment of Ventricular Tachycardia

    Jadczyk T, Miszczyk M, Kurzelowski R, et al. Stereotactic Radioablation for Treatment of Ventricular Tachycardia. In: Jadczyk T, Caluori G, Loewe A, et al. , eds. Innovative Treatment Strategies for Clinical Electrophysiology . Lecture Notes in Bioengineering. Singapore: Sprin...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation for ventricular tachycardia: a review of clinical trials and emerging roles of imaging

    Kawamura M, Shimojo M, Tatsugami F, et al. Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation for ventricular tachycardia: a review of clinical trials and emerging roles of imaging. Journal of Radiation Research. 2024:rrae090

    2024

  5. [13]

    Inducibility of Ventricular Arrhythmia 1 Year Following Treatment with Heavy Ion Irradiation in Dogs with Myocardial Infarction

    Amino M, Yoshioka K, Furusawa Y , et al. Inducibility of Ventricular Arrhythmia 1 Year Following Treatment with Heavy Ion Irradiation in Dogs with Myocardial Infarction. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2017;40:379–390

    2017

  6. [14]

    Electrophysiological and Pathological Impact of Medium- Dose External Carbon Ion and Proton Beam Radiation on the Left Ventricle in an Animal Model

    Takami M, Hara T, Okimoto T, et al. Electrophysiological and Pathological Impact of Medium- Dose External Carbon Ion and Proton Beam Radiation on the Left Ventricle in an Animal Model. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e019687

    2021

  7. [15]

    Early Impact of Proton Beam Therapy on Electrophysiological Characteristics in a Porcine Model

    Imamura K, Deisher AJ, Dickow J, et al. Early Impact of Proton Beam Therapy on Electrophysiological Characteristics in a Porcine Model. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol . 2023;16:e011179

    2023

  8. [16]

    Heavy Ion Irradiation Reduces Vulnerability to Atrial Tachyarrhythmias - Gap Junction and Sympathetic Neural Remodeling

    Amino M, Yamazaki M, Yoshioka K, et al. Heavy Ion Irradiation Reduces Vulnerability to Atrial Tachyarrhythmias - Gap Junction and Sympathetic Neural Remodeling. Circ J. 2023;87:1016 – 1026

    2023

  9. [17]

    First-in-man case of non-invasive proton radiotherapy for the treatment of refractory ventricular tachycardia in advanced heart failure

    Dusi V, Vitolo V, Frigerio L, et al. First-in-man case of non-invasive proton radiotherapy for the treatment of refractory ventricular tachycardia in advanced heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail . 2021;23:195–196

    2021

  10. [18]

    Clinical experience of stereotactic body radiation for refractory ventricular tachycardia in advanced heart failure patients

    Lloyd MS, Wight J, Schneider F, et al. Clinical experience of stereotactic body radiation for refractory ventricular tachycardia in advanced heart failure patients. Heart Rhythm. 2020;17:415– 422

    2020

  11. [19]

    Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101

    Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101. Medical Physics. 2010;37:4078–4101

    2010

  12. [20]

    Conformity index: A review

    Feuvret L, Noël G, Mazeron J -J, et al. Conformity index: A review. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2006;64:333–342

    2006

  13. [21]

    An Overview of Hypofractionation and Introduction to This Issue of Seminars in Radiation Oncology

    Timmerman RD. An Overview of Hypofractionation and Introduction to This Issue of Seminars in Radiation Oncology. Seminars in Radiation Oncology. 2008;18:215–222

    2008

  14. [22]

    Giaddui T, Chen W , Yu J, et al. Establishing the feasibility of the dosimetric compliance criteria of RTOG 1308: phase III randomized trial comparing overall survival after photon versus proton radiochemotherapy for inoperable stage II-IIIB NSCLC. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11:66

    2016

  15. [23]

    Can protons improve SBRT for lung lesions? Dosimetric considerations

    Georg D, Hillbrand M, Stock M, et al. Can protons improve SBRT for lung lesions? Dosimetric considerations. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2008;88:368–375

    2008

  16. [24]

    Dose–Volume Comparison of Proton Radiotherapy and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Non -Small-Cell Lung Cancer

    Kadoya N, Obata Y , Kato T, et al. Dose–Volume Comparison of Proton Radiotherapy and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Non -Small-Cell Lung Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2011;79:1225–1231

    2011

  17. [25]

    Scanning Beam Proton Therapy versus Photon IMRT for Stage III Lung Cancer: Comparison of Dosimetry, Toxicity, and Outcomes

    Zou Z, Bowen SR, Thomas HMT, et al. Scanning Beam Proton Therapy versus Photon IMRT for Stage III Lung Cancer: Comparison of Dosimetry, Toxicity, and Outcomes. Advances in Radiation Oncology. 2020;5:434–443

    2020

  18. [26]

    Bhangoo RS, DeWees TA, Yu NY , et al. Acute Toxicities and Short-Term Patient Outcomes After Intensity-Modulated Proton Beam Radiation Therapy or Intensity -Modulated Photon Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Mayo Clinic Experience. Advances in Radiation Oncology . ...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Cardiac Arrhythmias in Patients Treated for Lung Cancer: A Review

    Hawryszko M, Sławiński G, Tomasik B, et al. Cardiac Arrhythmias in Patients Treated for Lung Cancer: A Review. Cancers. 2023;15:5723

    2023

  20. [28]

    The effects of radiation therapy on the heart: implications for management

    Hsieh K, Hotca AE, Runnels J, et al. The effects of radiation therapy on the heart: implications for management. Chin Clin Oncol. 2024;13:10–10

    2024

  21. [29]

    Narrative Review: Cardiotoxicities and Cardiac -Sparing Techniques in Radiotherapy

    Chan MF, Parikh D, Shi C. Narrative Review: Cardiotoxicities and Cardiac -Sparing Techniques in Radiotherapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2024;23:15330338241301211

    2024

  22. [30]

    Heart is a heavy burden: cardiac toxicity in radiation oncology

    Pouvreau P , Taleb I, Fontaine A, et al. Heart is a heavy burden: cardiac toxicity in radiation oncology. Support Care Cancer. 2024;32:769

    2024

  23. [31]

    Proton and photon radiotherapy in stage III NSCLC: Effects on hematological toxicity and adjuvant immune therapy

    Cortiula F, Hendriks LEL, Wijsman R, et al. Proton and photon radiotherapy in stage III NSCLC: Effects on hematological toxicity and adjuvant immune therapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology . 2024;190:110019

    2024

  24. [32]

    Proton vs photon: A model -based approach to patient selection for reduction of cardiac toxicity in locally advanced lung cancer

    Teoh S, Fiorini F, George B, et al. Proton vs photon: A model -based approach to patient selection for reduction of cardiac toxicity in locally advanced lung cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2020;152:151–162

    2020

  25. [33]

    A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy

    Zientara N, Giles E, Le H, et al. A scoping review of patient selection methods for proton therapy. J of Medical Radiation Sci. 2022;69:108–121

    2022

  26. [34]

    Incessant ventricular tachycardia treated with cardiac radioablation in an 11 -year-old boy with dilated cardiomyopathy

    Lee Y , Yoon HI, Kim J -S, et al. Incessant ventricular tachycardia treated with cardiac radioablation in an 11 -year-old boy with dilated cardiomyopathy. HeartRhythm Case Rep . 2021;7:186–190

    2021

  27. [35]

    Lee CT, Bilton SD, Famiglietti RM, et al. Treatment planning with protons for pediatric retinoblastoma, medulloblastoma, and pelvic sarcoma: How do protons compare with other conformal techniques? International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics . 2005;63:362–372

    2005

  28. [36]

    Impact of the NTCP modeling on medical decision to select eligible patient for proton therapy: the usefulness of EUD as an indicator to rank modern photon vs proton treatment plans

    Chaikh A, Calugaru V, Bondiau P-Y , et al. Impact of the NTCP modeling on medical decision to select eligible patient for proton therapy: the usefulness of EUD as an indicator to rank modern photon vs proton treatment plans. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2018;94:789–797

    2018

  29. [37]

    Cardiac Substructure Radiation Dose and Risk of Late Cardiac Disease in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

    Bates JE, Shrestha S, Liu Q, et al. Cardiac Substructure Radiation Dose and Risk of Late Cardiac Disease in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. JCO. 2023;41:3826–3838

    2023

  30. [38]

    Cardiac Disease in Childhood Cancer Survivors Treated With Radiation Therapy: A PENTEC Comprehensive Review

    Bates JE, Rancati T, Keshavarz H, et al. Cardiac Disease in Childhood Cancer Survivors Treated With Radiation Therapy: A PENTEC Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2024;119:522–532

    2024

  31. [39]

    Seco J, Panahandeh HR, Westover K, et al. Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Proton Beam-Based Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Dosimetric Comparison With Photon Plans Highlights Importance of Range Uncertainty. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Bio...

    2012

  32. [40]

    Seco J, Gu G, Marcelos T, et al. Proton Arc Reduces Range Uncertainty Effects and Improves Conformality Compared With Photon Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Non -Small Cell Lung Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Bio...

    2013

  33. [41]

    Asymptomatic Late-phase Radiographic Changes Among Chest-Wall Patients Are Associated With a Proton RBE Exceeding 1.1

    Underwood TSA, 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

    2018

  34. [42]

    Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy

    Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys. Med. Biol. 2014;59:R419–R472

    2014

  35. [43]

    Mechanisms and Review of Clinical Evidence of Variations in Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy

    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

    2022

  36. [44]

    Case Report: Repeated Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Recurrent Ventricular Tachycardia: Reasons, Feasibility, and Safety

    Haskova J, Peichl P , Šramko M, et al. Case Report: Repeated Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Recurrent Ventricular Tachycardia: Reasons, Feasibility, and Safety. Front Cardiovasc Med . 2022;9:845382

    2022

  37. [45]

    Magnetic Resonance -Guided Stereotactic Radioablation for Septal Ventricular Tachycardias

    Bianchi S, Marchesano D, Magnocavallo M, et al. Magnetic Resonance -Guided Stereotactic Radioablation for Septal Ventricular Tachycardias. JACC Clin Electrophysiol . 2024:S2405-500X(24)00749–7

    2024

  38. [46]

    First experimental exploration of real -time cardiorespiratory motion management for future stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation treatments on the MR-linac

    Akdag O, Borman PTS, Woodhead P , et al. First experimental exploration of real -time cardiorespiratory motion management for future stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation treatments on the MR-linac. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67

    2022

  39. [47]

    Proton Beam Therapy Interference With Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers

    Oshiro Y , Sugahara S, Noma M, et al. Proton Beam Therapy Interference With Implanted Cardiac Pacemakers. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2008;72:723– 727

    2008

  40. [48]

    Influence of secondary neutrons induced by proton radiotherapy for cancer patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

    Hashimoto T, Isobe T, Hashii H, et al. Influence of secondary neutrons induced by proton radiotherapy for cancer patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Radiat Oncol . 2012;7:10

    2012

  41. [49]

    Effect of radiation therapy on permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator function

    Makkar A, Prisciandaro J, Agarwal S, et al. Effect of radiation therapy on permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator function. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9:1964–1968

    2012

  42. [50]

    Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG-203†

    Miften M, Mihailidis D, Kry SF, et al. Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG-203†. Medical Physics. 2019;46

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.