Bridging the proton gap: A proton therapy consultation service for Canadian radiation oncologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Canada is the only G7 country without a clinical proton beam therapy (PBT) facility. Patients can access publicly funded PBT through provincial out-of-country approval programs. We created a consultation service to inform health care providers regarding the potential dosimetric benefits of PBT. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients referred to our proton consultation service from June 2020 to December 2024. Pencil beam scanning proton plans were generated in the RayStation treatment planning system. Key dosimetric parameters were evaluated using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. Results: A total of 55 patients were referred to our service, and 49 had evaluable plans. Patients were referred from 6 provinces and 11 institutions across Canada. The median age at referral was 36 (range, 3-74 years), and 29 % of patients were pediatric. The most common reasons for referral were young age (33 %) and proximity of tumour to OARs (37 %). Target coverage was similar in both photon and proton plans. Cranial (n = 19) and thoracic (n = 7) plans showed a statistically significant reduction in mean brain dose (p < 0.001), mean brain dose minus PTV (p < 0.001), brain D50% (p < 0.001), mean lung dose (p = 0.02), lung V50% (p = 0.02), and lung D50% (p = 0.02) with proton therapy. Sixteen patients were approved by their provincial Ministry of Health for PBT in the United States. Conclusion: Our proton consultation program provides an important service by identifying patients where PBT offers a dosimetric advantage over photon therapy. Following this personalized, data-informed approach, nearly a third of referred patients were approved to go to the US for PBT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".