Skip to main content
Powered by ShareScore

Find research datasets worth reusing

Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.

21

datasets available to search

ShareScore release 0.9.0

Reset

Dataset results

21 results for “Intensity modulated proton therapy”

Learn how ShareScore rates datasets ↗
ClinicalTrials.gov32/100

Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Trial

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01512589. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov32/100

Intensity-Modulated Proton Beam Therapy or Intensity-Modulated Photon Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage III-IVB Oropharyngeal Cancer

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01893307. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 3.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov32/100

A Phase II Trial of Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Incompletely Resected Craniopharyngioma and Observation for Craniopharyngioma After Radical Resection

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02792582. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov28/100

Linear Energy Transfer (LET)-Optimized Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) as a Component of Definitive Chemoradiation for Newly Diagnosed Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anal Canal: a Feasibilit

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03690921. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov28/100

The UPPROACH (Upfront Intensity Modulated Proton Beam Therapy) Approach

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04527900. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov28/100

Hypofractionated Pencil-Beam Scanning Intensity-modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) in Recurrent Rectal Cancer

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04827732. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

A Trial of Increased Dose Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for High-Grade Meningiomas

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02693990. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Intensity Modulated Proton or X-Ray Therapy After Surgery for Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer, the HEADLIGHT Study

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05075980. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) or TransOral Robotic Surgery (TORS) for the Treatment of Low-Risk Oropharynx Squamous Cell

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02663583. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Intensity-Modulated or Proton Radiation Therapy for Sinonasal Malignancy

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01586767. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Image-Guided, Intensity-Modulated Photon or Proton Beam Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage II-IIIB Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01629498. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Palliative Spatially Fractionated (GRID) Radiotherapy Using Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05831579. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

controlledIPD-YESFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Intensity Modulated PrOton Therapy in Pediatric BRain Tumors (IMPORT)

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT07338526. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Registry Study of Thoracic Reirradiation for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Utilizing Proton Beam Therapy or Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01808677. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Comparison of Proton or Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy After Surgery for Endometrial or Cervical Cancer

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04567771. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Hypoxia-positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) Dose Painting in Patients With Chordomas

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00713037. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Proton Beam or Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Preserving Brain Function in Patients With IDH Mutant Grade II or III Glioma

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03180502. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

restrictedIPD-UNDECIDEDFeb 2026View details →
ClinicalTrials.gov24/100

Prospective Study of Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT) for Small Cell Lung Cancer

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT04342429. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.

closedIPD-NOFeb 2026View details →
zenodo16/100

Dataset related to article "The Potential Role of Intensity-modulated Proton Therapy in the Regional Nodal Irradiation of Breast Cancer: A Treatment Planning Study."

<p>AIMS:</p> <p>To investigate the role of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for regional nodal irradiation in patients with breast carcinoma in comparison with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).</p> <p>MATERIALS AND METHODS:</p> <p>A cohort of 20 patients (10 in the breast-conserving surgery group and 10 post-mastectomy patients with tissue expander implants) was investigated. Proton plans were also computed using robust optimisation methods. Plan quality was assessed by means of dose-volume histograms and scored with conventional metrics. Estimates of the risk of secondary cancer induction (excess absolute risk, EAR) were carried out, taking into account fractionation, repopulation and repair.</p> <p>RESULTS:</p> <p>Concerning target coverage, the data proved a substantial equivalence of VMAT and IMPT: for example, coverage for the 50 Gy target, expressed in terms of V<sub>98%</sub>, was 47.8&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.4, 47.6&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.4, 47.3&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.8, consistent with the objective of 47.5 Gy, for post-mastectomy patients for the three groups of patients. Also, the conformality of the dose distributions was similar for the two techniques, about 1.1, without statistically significant differences. Organ at risk planning aims were achieved for all structures for both techniques. The mean dose to the ipsilateral lung was 10.8&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;1.1, 6.2&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.8, 7.2&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;1.0; for the contralateral lung was 3.2&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.7, 0.3&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.2, 0.4&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.2; for the contralateral breast was: 3.1&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.7, 0.3&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.3 and 0.3&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.3, whereas it was 3.9 &plusmn; 0.9, 0.4&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.3 and 0.5&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.5, respectively, for the heart for VMAT, IMPT and robust IMPT plans over the whole group of patients. Robust optimisation affected the near-to-maximum dose values for contralateral lung and breast, the mean dose for the heart and ipsilateral lung, with a deterioration ranging from 20 to 40% of the nominal value of IMPT plans (e.g. from 8.1&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;6.4 to 11.4&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;8.8 for the heart compared with 16.2&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;5.2 for the VMAT plans). The numerical values of EAR per 10&nbsp;000 patient-years were about one order of magnitude higher for VMAT than for IMPT for contralateral structures: 11.66&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;2.01, 0.89&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.80, 0.98&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.77 for the contralateral breast and the three groups of plans, respectively; 14.31&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;2.75, 1.42&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.80, 1.78&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;0.87 for the contralateral lung; and 34.86&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;2.64, 18.85&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;2.15, 20.98&nbsp;&plusmn;&nbsp;2.35 for the ipsilateral lung.</p> <p>CONCLUSION:</p> <p>IMPT with or without robust optimisation seems to be a potentially promising approach for the radiation treatment of breast cancer when nodal volumes should be irradiated. This was measured in terms of dosimetric advantage and predicted clinical benefit. In fact, the significant reduction in estimated EAR could add further clinical value to the dosimetric sparing of the organs at risk achievable with IMPT.</p>

restrictedMar 2020View details →
zenodo16/100

Dataset related to article: "Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin's lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction"

<p>This record contains data related to article: &quot;Intensity modulated proton therapy compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy in the irradiation of young female patients with hodgkin&#39;s lymphoma. Assessment of risk of toxicity and secondary cancer induction&quot;</p> <p>Abstract</p> <p><strong>Background: </strong> To investigate the role of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for advanced supradiaphragmatic Hodgkin&#39;s lymphoma (HL) in young female patients by assessing dosimetric features and modelling the risk of treatment related complications and radiation-induced secondary malignancies.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong> A group of 20 cases (planned according to the involved-site approach) were retrospectively investigated in a comparative planning study. Intensity modulated proton plans (IMPT) were compared to VMAT RapidArc plans (RA). Estimates of toxicity were derived from normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations with either the Lyman or the Poisson models for a number of endpoints. Estimates of the risk of secondary cancer induction were determined for lungs, breasts, esophagus and thyroid. A simple model-based selection strategy was considered as a feasibility proof for the individualized selection of patients suitable for proton therapy.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong> IMPT and VMAT plans resulted equivalent in terms of target dose distributions, both were capable to ensure high coverage and homogeneity. In terms of conformality, IMPT resulted ~ 10% better than RA plans. Concerning organs at risk, IMPT data presented a systematic improvement (highly significant) over RA for all organs, particularly in the dose range up to 20Gy. This lead to a composite average reduction of NTCP of 2.90 &plusmn; 2.24 and a reduction of 0.26 &plusmn; 0.22 in the relative risk of cardiac failures. The excess absolute risk per 10,000 patients-years of secondary cancer induction was reduced, with IMPT, of 9.1 &plusmn; 3.2, 7.2 &plusmn; 3.7 for breast and lung compared to RA. The gain in EAR for thyroid and esophagus was lower than 1. Depending on the arbitrary thresholds applied, the selection rate for proton treatment would have ranged from 5 to 75%.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> In relation to young female patients with advanced supradiaphragmatic HL, IMPT can in general offer improved dose-volume sparing of organs at risk leading to an anticipated lower risk of early or late treatment related toxicities. This would reflect also in significantly lower risk of secondary malignancies induction compared to advanced photon based techniques. Depending on the selection thresholds and with all the limits of a non-validated and very basic model, it can be anticipated that a significant fraction of patients might be suitable for proton treatments if all the risk factors would be accounted for.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

restrictedJun 2020View details →

ScienceDex guides

Understand access before you commit

These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.

Compare curated datasets

Allen Brain Atlas

Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.

allen-brain-atlas
neuroscienceopenDocumentation, web resources, and API references are available online.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)

ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.

abode-home-cage
behavioral-neuroscienceopenThe DataShare record exposes download links for annotations, documentation, license text, and the zipped per-snippet data directory.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

DANDI Archive for NWB datasets

DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.

dandi-nwb
electrophysiologyopenPublished Dandiset metadata and archive endpoints are available through the production DANDI API.
Last verified 2026-04-30Open record

International Brain Laboratory public data

The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.

ibl
behavioral-neuroscienceopenPublic sessions can be searched and loaded from the IBL public data server through ONE.
Last verified 2026-04-29Open record

OpenNeuro

OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.

openneuro
neuroscienceopenPublished datasets are available on demand over the internet.
Last verified 2026-04-29Open record