pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24704 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

Physics-driven innovations toward the democratization of proton therapy

Vivek Maradia , Martin Bues This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 17:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph
keywords proton therapycompact acceleratorsinterplay effectdelivery speedcost per patientrespiratory motioneconomic frameworkdemocratization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Achieving 10-second field delivery times in compact proton systems suppresses respiratory motion effects and enables the throughput for financial viability.

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

Proton therapy delivers precise dose distributions impossible with photons, yet reaches fewer than 1 percent of patients who might benefit because of high costs and technical complexity. The review identifies two physics bottlenecks: expense from the scaling laws of accelerators, beam transport, and shielding; and motion from the mismatch between sequential pencil-beam scanning and tumor displacement during breathing. Successive compact architectures, from gantry-integrated energy selection to gantry-mounted accelerators and upright fixed-beam systems, have steadily reduced facility size toward simpler, lower-cost designs. An economic physics framework shows that delivery speed exerts greater leverage on cost per patient than capital-cost reduction alone, and field times of approximately 10 seconds now demonstrated across different machines suppress the interplay effect while supporting the patient volume required for viability. The same physics advances also open paths via proton arc therapy, FLASH irradiation, and adaptive delivery.

Core claim

The paper claims that compact accelerator architectures combined with beam delivery times of approximately 10 seconds per field can simultaneously eliminate the interplay effect arising from respiratory motion and achieve the throughput needed for economic sustainability, thereby addressing both cost and motion bottlenecks through physics-driven reductions in facility scale and treatment duration.

What carries the argument

The economic physics framework that weighs fixed and variable operating costs to show delivery speed has greater leverage on cost per patient than capital reduction, applied across compact gantry-integrated and gantry-mounted accelerator designs.

If this is right

  • Field delivery times of approximately 10 seconds suppress the interplay effect between pencil-beam scanning and respiratory tumor motion.
  • These speeds provide the patient throughput required for the financial viability of proton facilities.
  • Compact designs reduce facility scale and associated costs while addressing both economic and motion barriers.
  • Further innovations such as proton arc therapy, FLASH irradiation, and adaptive delivery extend the route to wider adoption.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If speed remains the dominant cost driver, even smaller or potentially mobile proton units could become practical in more settings.
  • Treatment centers might prioritize upgrades to scanning speed over expansion of accelerator size.
  • Wider access could increase use of protons for tumors that move with breathing.
  • The dual solution of motion control through speed may apply to other particle-based therapies facing similar scaling and motion limits.

Load-bearing premise

Compact architectures and 10-second deliveries preserve clinical dose accuracy, safety margins, and patient outcomes equivalent to those of conventional large-scale systems when used at scale.

What would settle it

Long-term clinical data comparing local tumor control and toxicity rates for patients treated on compact fast-delivery systems versus conventional large-gantry systems.

read the original abstract

Proton therapy exploits the finite range of charged particles in tissue to achieve dose distributions no photon based modality can replicate. Yet the modality reaches fewer than 1 percent of patients who might benefit a gap rooted in cost and complexity rather than clinical evidence. This Review reframes proton therapy adoption as a physics problem. Two fundamental bottlenecks are identified: cost, arising from scaling laws governing accelerator design, beam transport, and radiation shielding; and motion, arising from the spatiotemporal mismatch between sequential pencil beam scanning and respiratory tumour displacement. We trace how successive compact architectures from gantry-integrated energy selection to gantry mounted accelerators and upright fixed beam systems have progressively reduced facility scale toward LINAC like simplicity and cost-effectiveness. An economic physics framework incorporating fixed and variable operating costs demonstrates that delivery speed has greater leverage on cost per patient than capital cost reduction alone. Field delivery times of approximately 10 seconds now demonstrated across fundamentally different architectures simultaneously suppress the interplay effect and enable the patient throughput required for financial viability. The same physics that resolves the motion problem drives the economic case for broad adoption. Emerging directions, including proton arc therapy, FLASH irradiation, and adaptive delivery define the path toward global democratization of the modality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review that reframes proton therapy's limited adoption (<1% of eligible patients) as a physics problem driven by two bottlenecks: cost (from scaling laws in accelerator design, beam transport, and shielding) and motion (interplay effects in pencil-beam scanning due to respiratory displacement). It traces the progressive development of compact architectures (gantry-integrated energy selection, gantry-mounted accelerators, upright fixed-beam systems) that achieve field delivery times of ~10 seconds. An economic physics framework is presented showing that delivery speed has greater leverage on cost-per-patient than capital-cost reduction alone. The review concludes that these fast deliveries suppress the interplay effect while enabling the throughput needed for financial viability, thereby supporting democratization of the modality, and identifies future directions including proton arc therapy, FLASH irradiation, and adaptive delivery.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the review offers a coherent synthesis linking physical constraints directly to economic outcomes, which could guide technology development toward broader access. It appropriately credits external demonstrations across distinct architectures and frames delivery speed as the key lever, providing a useful perspective for the field. The absence of original data or re-derivations is consistent with its review format, but the narrative strength rests on the robustness of the cited evidence.

major comments (1)
  1. [section tracing successive compact architectures] In the section tracing successive compact architectures and the abstract's claim of ~10 s deliveries: the assertion that these compact systems simultaneously suppress the interplay effect, enable required patient throughput, and preserve clinical dose accuracy/safety margins equivalent to conventional large-scale systems is load-bearing for both the motion-management and economic-viability arguments, yet the review provides no independent synthesis, meta-analysis of QA data, or explicit comparison of beam properties (energy spread, spot size, distal fall-off) from the referenced demonstrations. As a literature summary without original measurements, this equivalence is stated rather than verified, leaving the central claim vulnerable.
minor comments (1)
  1. [economic physics framework discussion] The economic physics framework is referenced but its key assumptions, fixed/variable cost terms, or any explicit equations are not summarized in the provided abstract; adding a concise statement or reference to the framework's derivation would improve accessibility for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed assessment of our review. The feedback highlights an important point about the strength of evidence in a synthesis paper, and we address it directly below while outlining targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: In the section tracing successive compact architectures and the abstract's claim of ~10 s deliveries: the assertion that these compact systems simultaneously suppress the interplay effect, enable required patient throughput, and preserve clinical dose accuracy/safety margins equivalent to conventional large-scale systems is load-bearing for both the motion-management and economic-viability arguments, yet the review provides no independent synthesis, meta-analysis of QA data, or explicit comparison of beam properties (energy spread, spot size, distal fall-off) from the referenced demonstrations. As a literature summary without original measurements, this equivalence is stated rather than verified, leaving the central claim vulnerable.

    Authors: We agree that the central claims rest on the robustness of the cited demonstrations rather than new measurements or a formal meta-analysis, which is inherent to the review format. The manuscript already references specific publications that report beam properties, dosimetry validations, and clinical QA outcomes for the compact architectures discussed. To strengthen transparency, we will revise the section on successive compact architectures to include an explicit summary (in tabular form where feasible) of the published values for energy spread, spot size, and distal fall-off from the key cited works, together with any direct comparisons to conventional systems that appear in the source literature. We will also add brief references to the published QA and safety-margin data supporting clinical equivalence. This revision will make the evidential basis more explicit without introducing original data or statistical re-analysis. A full independent meta-analysis of QA datasets lies outside the scope of a review article. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A formal meta-analysis or re-derivation of QA data across all referenced systems, which would require access to raw clinical datasets and statistical methods beyond the remit of a literature review.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review paper summarizes external literature with no internal derivation chain or self-referential loops

full rationale

The manuscript is a review that traces compact proton therapy architectures and an economic physics framework from cited prior work rather than deriving new results. No equations, parameter fittings, or predictions are constructed within the paper that reduce to its own inputs by definition or self-citation. Claims about ~10 s delivery times, interplay suppression, and cost leverage per patient are attributed to external demonstrations across different systems, with no original measurements or re-derivations that could create a fitted-input-called-prediction or self-definitional pattern. Any self-citations present are not load-bearing for uniqueness theorems or ansatzes, as the central narrative relies on independent external evidence for dosimetric and economic assertions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review does not introduce new mathematical models, derivations, or postulates; it discusses scaling laws, economic frameworks, and architectures drawn from existing literature. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5500 in / 1119 out tokens · 54572 ms · 2026-05-07T17:03:50.435216+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 120 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    As protons traverse matter, they deposit the bulk of their energy in a sharply defined distal peak—the Bragg peak— before coming to an abrupt stop2

    Introduction Proton therapy occupies a unique position in the landscape of cancer radiotherapy, grounded in a physical principle that no photon-based modality can replicate: the finite, controllable range of charged particles in tissue1. As protons traverse matter, they deposit the bulk of their energy in a sharply defined distal peak—the Bragg peak— befo...

    work page 1946

  2. [2]

    These are not merely practical difficulties but reflect deeper physical laws governing how proton beams are generated, transported, and delivered in space and time

    Fundamental limitations: cost and motion Despite its favorable depth–dose characteristics, proton therapy remains bounded by two fundamental and tightly coupled constraints: cost and motion. These are not merely practical difficulties but reflect deeper physical laws governing how proton beams are generated, transported, and delivered in space and time. U...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Economic physics: why delivery speed is the primary lever Before examining how the field has responded to the physical constraints described in §2, it is worth establishing what those constraints cost—and why the answer is not obvious. Conventional debate frames proton therapy economics around capital expenditure: a large cyclotron/synchrotron-based facil...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Facility-level innovation and architecture The economic physics framework of §3 establishes that the dominant levers on cost per patient are building size—governed by beam losses and shielding requirements— system integration complexity, and delivery speed. The history of compact proton therapy architecture is the history of progressively relocating the d...

    work page

  5. [5]

    In lung and liver tumours, where respiratory motion necessitates gating or rescanning, total delivery times routinely extend to 30–40 minutes per fraction53,54

    Treatment delivery innovation: reducing field delivery time in PBS proton therapy Improving treatment efficiency is essential to maximizing beam utilization and patient throughput in modern proton therapy facilities and becomes especially acute for moving targets. In lung and liver tumours, where respiratory motion necessitates gating or rescanning, total...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Outlook: converging frontiers The delivery speeds established in §5 (Table 2) are not an endpoint but an enabler. Each direction surveyed in this section extends fast delivery into a distinct physical dimension: §6.1 examines accelerator concepts that push energy-switching timescales below 10 ms, eliminating the last remaining dead-time bottleneck; §6.2 s...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Toward democratization: a physical roadmap Proton therapy began as a physicist's insight about the Bragg peak. The question it now faces is not whether it works but whether it can reach the patients who need it— approximately 50% of cancer patients require radiotherapy, yet in most low- and middle- income countries even basic radiotherapy access is severe...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Paganetti, Ph. D. , H. Proton Therapy Physics. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2025). doi:10.1201/9781032616858

    work page doi:10.1201/9781032616858 2025

  9. [9]

    WILSON, R. R. Radiological use of fast protons. Radiology 47, 487–491 (1946)

    work page 1946

  10. [10]

    Intensity modulation methods for proton radiotherapy

    Lomax, A. Intensity modulation methods for proton radiotherapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 185–205 (1999)

    work page 1999

  11. [11]

    Ladra, M. M. et al. A dosimetric comparison of proton and intensity modulated radiation therapy in pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma patients enrolled on a prospective phase II proton study. Radiotherapy and Oncology 113, 77–83 (2014)

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Verma, V., Simone, C. B. & Mishra, M. V. Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Proton Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 110, 341– 353 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Yock, T. I. et al. Quality of life outcomes in proton and photon treated pediatric brain tumor survivors. Radiotherapy and Oncology 113, 89–94 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Chung, C. S. et al. Incidence of second malignancies among patients treated with proton versus photon radiation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 87, 46–52 (2013)

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Xiang, M., Chang, D. T. & Pollom, E. L. Second cancer risk after primary cancer treatment with three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated, or proton beam radiation therapy. Cancer 126, 3560–3568 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Baumann, B. C. et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Proton vs Photon Therapy as Part of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 6, 237–246 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Chang, J. Y. et al. Phase 2 study of high-dose proton therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for unresectable stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 117, 4707– 4713 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Sejpal, S. et al. Early findings on toxicity of proton beam therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 117, 3004–3013 (2011). Page 20 of 25

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    M., Joiner, M

    Chen, Z., Dominello, M. M., Joiner, M. C. & Burmeister, J. W. Proton versus photon radiation therapy: A clinical review. Front. Oncol. 13, (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Thomson, D. J. et al. Proton beam therapy for oropharyngeal cancer (TORPEdO): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 407, 1259–1275 (2026)

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    Thomson, D. et al. Primary results for the phase III trial of Toxicity Reduction using Proton Beam Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer (TORPEdO; CRUK/18/010). International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 123, 1195–1196 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Liao, Z. et al. Bayesian Adaptive Randomization Trial of Passive Scattering Proton Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Photon Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 36, 1813–1822 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Frank, S. J. et al. Proton versus photon radiotherapy for patients with oropharyngeal cancer in the USA: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. The Lancet 407, 174–184 (2026)

    work page 2026

  24. [24]

    Bortfeld, T. R. & Loeffler, J. S. Three ways to make proton therapy affordable. Nature 549, 451–453 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Maradia, V. et al. Accelerator technologies for proton and ion beam therapy. Nat. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-025-02994-7 (2025) doi:10.1038/s41567-025-02994-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-025-02994-7 2025

  26. [26]

    Tobias, C. A. et al. Pituitary Irradiation with High-Energy Proton Beams A Preliminary Report*. Cancer Res. 18, 121–134 (1958)

    work page 1958

  27. [27]

    A Brief History of the Harvard University Cyclotrons

    Wilson, R. A Brief History of the Harvard University Cyclotrons. (Harvard University Press, 2004)

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Goitein, M. et al. The value of ct scanning in radiation therapy treatment planning: A prospective study. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 5, 1787– 1798 (1979)

    work page 1979

  29. [29]

    Slater, J. M. et al. The proton treatment center at Loma Linda University Medical Center: Rationale for and description of its development. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 22, 383–389 (1992)

    work page 1992

  30. [30]

    M., Miller, D

    Slater, J. M., Miller, D. W. & Archambeau, J. O. Development of a hospital-based proton beam treatment center. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 14, 761–775 (1988)

    work page 1988

  31. [31]

    Pedroni, E. et al. The 200-Mev proton therapy project at the Paul Scherrer Institute: Conceptual design and practical realization. Med. Phys. 22, 37–53 (1995)

    work page 1995

  32. [32]

    & Jermann, M

    Goitein, M. & Jermann, M. The Relative Costs of Proton and X-ray Radiation Therapy. Clin. Oncol. 15, S37–S50 (2003)

    work page 2003

  33. [33]

    Peeters, A. et al. How costly is particle therapy? Cost analysis of external beam radiotherapy with carbon-ions, protons and photons. Radiotherapy and Oncology 95, 45– 53 (2010)

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    Verma, V., Mishra, M. V. & Mehta, M. P. A systematic review of the cost and cost‐ effectiveness studies of proton radiotherapy. Cancer 122, 1483–1501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    J., Smith, A

    Schulz, R. J., Smith, A. R. & Orton, C. G. Point/counterpoint. Proton therapy is too expensive for the minimal potential improvements in outcome claimed. Med. Phys. 34, 1135–8 (2007)

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    & Pijls-Johannesma, M

    Lievens, Y. & Pijls-Johannesma, M. Health Economic Controversy and Cost-Effectiveness of Proton Therapy. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 23, 134–141 (2013). Page 21 of 25

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    & Durante, M

    Bert, C. & Durante, M. Motion in radiotherapy: Particle therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 56, (2011)

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Bortfeld, T., Jiang, S. B. & Rietzel, E. Effects of motion on the total dose distribution. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 14, 41–51 (2004)

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    & Paganetti, H

    Grassberger, C., Dowdell, S., Sharp, G. & Paganetti, H. Motion mitigation for lung cancer patients treated with active scanning proton therapy. Med. Phys. 42, 2462–2469 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    E., Herman, M

    Johnson, J. E., Herman, M. G. & Kruse, J. J. Optimization of motion management parameters in a synchrotron-based spot scanning system. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 20, 69–77 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Phillips, M. H. et al. Effects of respiratory motion on dose uniformity with a charged particle scanning method. Phys. Med. Biol. 37, 223–234 (1992)

    work page 1992

  42. [42]

    & Lomax, A

    Schätti, A., Zakova, M., Meer, D. & Lomax, A. J. Experimental verification of motion mitigation of discrete proton spot scanning by re-scanning. Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 8555– 8572 (2013)

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    Paganetti, H. et al. Motion Interplay as a Function of Patient Parameters and Spot Size in Spot Scanning Proton Therapy for Lung Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 86, 380– 386 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Fattori, G. et al. Monitoring of breathing motion in image-guided PBS proton therapy: Comparative analysis of optical and electromagnetic technologies. Radiation Oncology 12, 1–11 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Chang, J. Y. et al. Clinical implementation of intensity modulated proton therapy for thoracic malignancies. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 90, 809–818 (2014)

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    Chang, J. Y. et al. Consensus Guidelines for Implementing Pencil-Beam Scanning Proton Therapy for Thoracic Malignancies on Behalf of the PTCOG Thoracic and Lymphoma Subcommittee. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 99, 41–50 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Schippers, J. M. Beam-transport systems for particle therapy. in CERN Yellow Reports: School Proceedings vol. 1 241–252 (CERN, 2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Ultra-fast treatment delivery to enhance the potential of proton therapy

    Maradia, V. Ultra-fast treatment delivery to enhance the potential of proton therapy. (ETH Zurich, 2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    & Newhauser, W

    Titt, U. & Newhauser, W. D. Neutron shielding calculations in a proton therapy facility based on Monte Carlo simulations and analytical models: criterion for selecting the method of choice. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 115, 144–148 (2005)

    work page 2005

  50. [50]

    D., Titt, U., Dexheimer, D., Yan, X

    Newhauser, W. D., Titt, U., Dexheimer, D., Yan, X. & Nill, S. Neutron shielding verification measurements and simulations for a 235-MeV proton therapy center. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 476, 80–84 (2002)

    work page 2002

  51. [51]

    & Low, D

    Zheng, Y., Newhauser, W., Klein, E. & Low, D. Monte Carlo simulation of the neutron spectral fluence and dose equivalent for use in shielding a proton therapy vault. Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 6943–6957 (2009)

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    Maradia, V. et al. A new emittance selection system to maximize beam transmission for low-energy beams in cyclotron-based proton therapy facilities with gantry. Med. Phys. 48, 7713–7622 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Gerbershagen, A. et al. Measurements and simulations of boron carbide as degrader material for proton therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 61, N337–N348 (2016). Page 22 of 25

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Energy degrader optimization for medical beam lines

    Anferov, V. Energy degrader optimization for medical beam lines. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01625-X (2003) doi:10.1016/S0168- 9002(02)01625-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)01625-x 2003

  55. [55]

    J., Van Der Meer, R., Reist, H

    Van Goethem, M. J., Van Der Meer, R., Reist, H. W. & Schippers, J. M. Geant4 simulations of proton beam transport through a carbon or beryllium degrader and following a beam line. Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 5831–5846 (2009)

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    & Psoroulas, S

    Meer, D. & Psoroulas, S. Gantries and dose delivery systems. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 30, (2015)

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    Mori, S. et al. Effects of a difference in respiratory cycle between treatment planning and irradiation for phase-controlled rescanning and carbon pencil beam scanning. British Journal of Radiology 86, (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    Lomax, A. J. Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: The potential effects of calculational uncertainties. Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 1043–1056 (2008)

    work page 2008

  59. [59]

    & Paganetti, H

    Seco, J., Robertson, D., Trofimov, A. & Paganetti, H. Breathing interplay effects during proton beam scanning: Simulation and statistical analysis. Phys. Med. Biol. 54, (2009)

    work page 2009

  60. [60]

    Taasti, V. T. et al. Proton therapy of lung cancer patients – Treatment strategies and clinical experience from a medical physicist’s perspective. Physica Medica 130, (2025)

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Tominaga, Y. et al. Comparing interplay effects in scanned proton therapy of lung cancer: Free breathing with various layer and volume rescanning versus respiratory gating with different gate widths. Physica Medica 120, (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Klimpki, G. et al. The impact of pencil beam scanning techniques on the effectiveness and efficiency of rescanning moving targets. Phys. Med. Biol. 63, (2018)

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    Furukawa, T. et al. Moving target irradiation with fast rescanning and gating in particle therapy. Med. Phys. 37, 4874–4879 (2010)

    work page 2010

  64. [64]

    Shimizu, S. et al. A proton beam therapy system dedicated to spot-scanning increases accuracy with moving tumors by real-time imaging and gating and reduces equipment size. PLoS One 9, 3–9 (2014)

    work page 2014

  65. [65]

    Boda-Heggemann, J. et al. Deep Inspiration Breath Hold - Based Radiation Therapy: A Clinical Review. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 94, 478–492 (2016)

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    Dueck, J. et al. Robustness of the Voluntary Breath-Hold Approach for the Treatment of Peripheral Lung Tumors Using Hypofractionated Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 95, 534–541 (2016)

    work page 2016

  67. [67]

    Gorgisyan, J. et al. Feasibility of Pencil Beam Scanned Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy in Breath-hold for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 99, 1121–1128 (2017)

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    Next-generation therapy accelerators

    Jongen, Y. Next-generation therapy accelerators. in Oral presentation at the International Conference on Medical Accelerators and Particle Therapy (OMA) (http://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://indico.cern.ch/event/803528/contrib utions/3378748/attachments/1902937/3141876/Next_Generation_Therapy_Accelerator s_YJongen.pdf, Centro Nacional de Aceler...

    work page arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    Zeidan, O. A. et al. Operational Performance of a Compact Proton Therapy System: A 5- Year Experience. Int. J. Part. Ther. 9, 10–19 (2022). Page 23 of 25

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    Contreras, J. et al. The world’s first single-room proton therapy facility: Two-year experience. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 7, e71–e76 (2017)

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    Kerstiens, J., Johnstone, G. P. & Johnstone, P. A. S. Proton Facility Economics: Single- Room Centers. Journal of the American College of Radiology 15, 1704–1708 (2018)

    work page 2018

  72. [72]

    Johnstone, P. A. S., Kerstiens, J. & Richard, H. Proton Facility Economics: The Importance of “Simple” Treatments. Journal of the American College of Radiology 9, 560–563 (2012)

    work page 2012

  73. [73]

    Maradia, V. et al. Ultra-fast pencil beam scanning proton therapy for locally advanced non- small-cell lung cancers : field delivery within a single breath-hold. Radiotherapy and Oncology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.06.018 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2022.06.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2022.06.018 2022

  74. [74]

    Maradia, V. et al. High-Speed Proton Therapy within a Short Breath-Hold. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06766 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    H., Bugg, D., Rowbottom, C

    Aitkenhead, A. H., Bugg, D., Rowbottom, C. G., Smith, E. & Mackay, R. I. Modelling the throughput capacity of a single-accelerator multitreatment room proton therapy centre. Br. J. Radiol. 85, e1263–e1272 (2012)

    work page 2012

  76. [76]

    R., Jönsson, B

    Lundkvist, J., Ekman, M., Ericsson, S. R., Jönsson, B. & Glimelius, B. Proton therapy of cancer: Potential clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness. Acta Oncol. (Madr). 44, 850– 861 (2005)

    work page 2005

  77. [77]

    Ramaekers, B. L. T. et al. Protons in Head-and-Neck Cancer: Bridging the Gap of Evidence. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 85, 1282–1288 (2013)

    work page 2013

  78. [78]

    Pidikiti, R. et al. Commissioning of the world’s first compact pencil-beam scanning proton therapy system. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 19, 94–105 (2018)

    work page 2018

  79. [79]

    & Pang, D

    Kang, M. & Pang, D. Commissioning and beam characterization of the first gantry- mounted accelerator pencil beam scanning proton system. Med. Phys. 47, 3496–3510 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Vilches-Freixas, G. et al. Beam commissioning of the first compact proton therapy system with spot scanning and dynamic field collimation. Br. J. Radiol. 93, (2020)

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.