Commissioning and validation of a novel commercial TPS for ocular proton therapy

Background Until today, the majority of ocular proton treatments worldwide were planned with the EYEPLAN treatment planning system (TPS). Recently, the commercial, computed tomography (CT)‐based TPS for ocular proton therapy RayOcular was released, which follows the general concepts of model‐based t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2023-01, Vol.50 (1), p.365-379
Hauptverfasser: Wulff, Jörg, Koska, Benjamin, Heufelder, Jens, Janson, Martin, Bäcker, Claus Maximilian, Siregar, Hilda, Behrends, Carina, Bäumer, Christian, Foerster, Andreas, Bechrakis, Nikolaos E., Timmermann, Beate
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 379
container_issue 1
container_start_page 365
container_title Medical physics (Lancaster)
container_volume 50
creator Wulff, Jörg
Koska, Benjamin
Heufelder, Jens
Janson, Martin
Bäcker, Claus Maximilian
Siregar, Hilda
Behrends, Carina
Bäumer, Christian
Foerster, Andreas
Bechrakis, Nikolaos E.
Timmermann, Beate
description Background Until today, the majority of ocular proton treatments worldwide were planned with the EYEPLAN treatment planning system (TPS). Recently, the commercial, computed tomography (CT)‐based TPS for ocular proton therapy RayOcular was released, which follows the general concepts of model‐based treatment planning approach in conjunction with a pencil‐beam‐type dose algorithm (PBA). Purpose To validate RayOcular with respect to two main features: accurate geometrical representation of the eye model and accuracy of its dose calculation algorithm in combination with an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) eye treatment delivery system. Methods Different 3D‐printed eye‐ball‐phantoms were fabricated to test the geometrical representation of the corresponding CT‐based model, both in orthogonal 2D images for X‐ray image overlay and in fundus view overlaid with a funduscopy. For the latter, the phantom was equipped with a lens matching refraction of the human eye. Funduscopy was acquired in a Zeiss Claus 500 camera. Tantalum clips and fiducials attached to the phantoms were localized in the TPS model, and residual deviations to the actual position in X‐ray images for various orientations of the phantom were determined, after the nominal eye orientation was corrected in RayOcular to obtain a best overall fit. In the fundus view, deviations between known and displayed distances were measured. Dose calculation accuracy of the PBA on a 0.2 mm grid was investigated by comparing between measured lateral and depth–dose profiles in water for various combinations of range, modulation, and field‐size. Ultimately, the modeling of dose distributions behind wedges was tested. A 1D gamma‐test was applied, and the lateral and distal penumbra were further compared. Results Average residuals between model clips and visible clips/fiducials in orthogonal X‐ray images were within 0.3 mm, including different orientations of the phantom. The differences between measured distances on the registered funduscopy image in the RayOcular fundus view and the known ground‐truth were within 1 mm up to 10.5 mm distance from the posterior pole. No clear benefit projection of either polar mode or camera mode could be identified, the latter mimicking camera properties. Measured dose distributions were reproduced with gamma‐test pass‐rates of >95% with 2%/0.3 mm for depth and lateral profiles in the middle of spread‐out Bragg‐peaks. Distal falloff and lateral penumbra were within 0.2 mm for fields without
doi_str_mv 10.1002/mp.16006
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2721637794</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2721637794</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3556-df925cb56960f3c1200c92a1de3cf2f2f79a33affe6c51c0119d286f0d3de3983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10F1LwzAUBuAgiptT8BdILr3pPEma1FzK8AsmDpzXIUsTrbRNTdrJ_r3RTb2SXBwID-_hvAidEpgSAHrRdFMiAMQeGtO8YFlOQe6jMYDMM5oDH6GjGN8gCcbhEI2YIJLzgo_RYuabpoqx8m3VvmDdlnit66rUffrB3mGNW7-2NTbJ2WAqXePl4gk7H7A3Q60D7oLvk-1fbdDd5hgdOF1He7KbE_R8c72c3WXzx9v72dU8M4xzkZVOUm5WXEgBjhlCAYykmpSWGUfTK6RmTDtnheHEACGypJfCQckSkZdsgs63uWn9-2Bjr9IZxta1bq0foqIFJYIVhcz_qAk-xmCd6kLV6LBRBNRXf6rp1Hd_iZ7tUodVY8tf-FNYAtkWfFS13fwbpB4W28BPeeF4uQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2721637794</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Commissioning and validation of a novel commercial TPS for ocular proton therapy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Wulff, Jörg ; Koska, Benjamin ; Heufelder, Jens ; Janson, Martin ; Bäcker, Claus Maximilian ; Siregar, Hilda ; Behrends, Carina ; Bäumer, Christian ; Foerster, Andreas ; Bechrakis, Nikolaos E. ; Timmermann, Beate</creator><creatorcontrib>Wulff, Jörg ; Koska, Benjamin ; Heufelder, Jens ; Janson, Martin ; Bäcker, Claus Maximilian ; Siregar, Hilda ; Behrends, Carina ; Bäumer, Christian ; Foerster, Andreas ; Bechrakis, Nikolaos E. ; Timmermann, Beate</creatorcontrib><description>Background Until today, the majority of ocular proton treatments worldwide were planned with the EYEPLAN treatment planning system (TPS). Recently, the commercial, computed tomography (CT)‐based TPS for ocular proton therapy RayOcular was released, which follows the general concepts of model‐based treatment planning approach in conjunction with a pencil‐beam‐type dose algorithm (PBA). Purpose To validate RayOcular with respect to two main features: accurate geometrical representation of the eye model and accuracy of its dose calculation algorithm in combination with an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) eye treatment delivery system. Methods Different 3D‐printed eye‐ball‐phantoms were fabricated to test the geometrical representation of the corresponding CT‐based model, both in orthogonal 2D images for X‐ray image overlay and in fundus view overlaid with a funduscopy. For the latter, the phantom was equipped with a lens matching refraction of the human eye. Funduscopy was acquired in a Zeiss Claus 500 camera. Tantalum clips and fiducials attached to the phantoms were localized in the TPS model, and residual deviations to the actual position in X‐ray images for various orientations of the phantom were determined, after the nominal eye orientation was corrected in RayOcular to obtain a best overall fit. In the fundus view, deviations between known and displayed distances were measured. Dose calculation accuracy of the PBA on a 0.2 mm grid was investigated by comparing between measured lateral and depth–dose profiles in water for various combinations of range, modulation, and field‐size. Ultimately, the modeling of dose distributions behind wedges was tested. A 1D gamma‐test was applied, and the lateral and distal penumbra were further compared. Results Average residuals between model clips and visible clips/fiducials in orthogonal X‐ray images were within 0.3 mm, including different orientations of the phantom. The differences between measured distances on the registered funduscopy image in the RayOcular fundus view and the known ground‐truth were within 1 mm up to 10.5 mm distance from the posterior pole. No clear benefit projection of either polar mode or camera mode could be identified, the latter mimicking camera properties. Measured dose distributions were reproduced with gamma‐test pass‐rates of &gt;95% with 2%/0.3 mm for depth and lateral profiles in the middle of spread‐out Bragg‐peaks. Distal falloff and lateral penumbra were within 0.2 mm for fields without a wedge. For shallow depths, the agreement was worse, reaching pass‐rates down to 80% with 5%/0.3 mm when comparing lateral profiles in air. This is caused by low‐energy protons from a scatter source in the IBA system not modeled by RayOcular. Dose distributions modified by wedges were reproduced, matching the wedge‐induced broadening of the lateral penumbra to within 0.4 mm for the investigated cases and showing the excess dose within the field due to wedge scatter. Conclusion RayOcular was validated for its use with an IBA single scattering delivery nozzle. Geometric modeling of the eye and representation of 2D projections fulfill clinical requirements. The PBA dose calculation reproduces measured distributions and allows explicit handling of wedges, overcoming approximations of simpler dose calculation algorithms used in other systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/mp.16006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36195575</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Humans ; Monte Carlo Method ; Phantoms, Imaging ; proton therapy ; Proton Therapy - methods ; Protons ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; RayOcular ; uveal melanoma</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2023-01, Vol.50 (1), p.365-379</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3556-df925cb56960f3c1200c92a1de3cf2f2f79a33affe6c51c0119d286f0d3de3983</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3556-df925cb56960f3c1200c92a1de3cf2f2f79a33affe6c51c0119d286f0d3de3983</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fmp.16006$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fmp.16006$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36195575$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wulff, Jörg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koska, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heufelder, Jens</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janson, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bäcker, Claus Maximilian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siregar, Hilda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behrends, Carina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bäumer, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foerster, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bechrakis, Nikolaos E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timmermann, Beate</creatorcontrib><title>Commissioning and validation of a novel commercial TPS for ocular proton therapy</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Background Until today, the majority of ocular proton treatments worldwide were planned with the EYEPLAN treatment planning system (TPS). Recently, the commercial, computed tomography (CT)‐based TPS for ocular proton therapy RayOcular was released, which follows the general concepts of model‐based treatment planning approach in conjunction with a pencil‐beam‐type dose algorithm (PBA). Purpose To validate RayOcular with respect to two main features: accurate geometrical representation of the eye model and accuracy of its dose calculation algorithm in combination with an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) eye treatment delivery system. Methods Different 3D‐printed eye‐ball‐phantoms were fabricated to test the geometrical representation of the corresponding CT‐based model, both in orthogonal 2D images for X‐ray image overlay and in fundus view overlaid with a funduscopy. For the latter, the phantom was equipped with a lens matching refraction of the human eye. Funduscopy was acquired in a Zeiss Claus 500 camera. Tantalum clips and fiducials attached to the phantoms were localized in the TPS model, and residual deviations to the actual position in X‐ray images for various orientations of the phantom were determined, after the nominal eye orientation was corrected in RayOcular to obtain a best overall fit. In the fundus view, deviations between known and displayed distances were measured. Dose calculation accuracy of the PBA on a 0.2 mm grid was investigated by comparing between measured lateral and depth–dose profiles in water for various combinations of range, modulation, and field‐size. Ultimately, the modeling of dose distributions behind wedges was tested. A 1D gamma‐test was applied, and the lateral and distal penumbra were further compared. Results Average residuals between model clips and visible clips/fiducials in orthogonal X‐ray images were within 0.3 mm, including different orientations of the phantom. The differences between measured distances on the registered funduscopy image in the RayOcular fundus view and the known ground‐truth were within 1 mm up to 10.5 mm distance from the posterior pole. No clear benefit projection of either polar mode or camera mode could be identified, the latter mimicking camera properties. Measured dose distributions were reproduced with gamma‐test pass‐rates of &gt;95% with 2%/0.3 mm for depth and lateral profiles in the middle of spread‐out Bragg‐peaks. Distal falloff and lateral penumbra were within 0.2 mm for fields without a wedge. For shallow depths, the agreement was worse, reaching pass‐rates down to 80% with 5%/0.3 mm when comparing lateral profiles in air. This is caused by low‐energy protons from a scatter source in the IBA system not modeled by RayOcular. Dose distributions modified by wedges were reproduced, matching the wedge‐induced broadening of the lateral penumbra to within 0.4 mm for the investigated cases and showing the excess dose within the field due to wedge scatter. Conclusion RayOcular was validated for its use with an IBA single scattering delivery nozzle. Geometric modeling of the eye and representation of 2D projections fulfill clinical requirements. The PBA dose calculation reproduces measured distributions and allows explicit handling of wedges, overcoming approximations of simpler dose calculation algorithms used in other systems.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Monte Carlo Method</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>proton therapy</subject><subject>Proton Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Protons</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>RayOcular</subject><subject>uveal melanoma</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10F1LwzAUBuAgiptT8BdILr3pPEma1FzK8AsmDpzXIUsTrbRNTdrJ_r3RTb2SXBwID-_hvAidEpgSAHrRdFMiAMQeGtO8YFlOQe6jMYDMM5oDH6GjGN8gCcbhEI2YIJLzgo_RYuabpoqx8m3VvmDdlnit66rUffrB3mGNW7-2NTbJ2WAqXePl4gk7H7A3Q60D7oLvk-1fbdDd5hgdOF1He7KbE_R8c72c3WXzx9v72dU8M4xzkZVOUm5WXEgBjhlCAYykmpSWGUfTK6RmTDtnheHEACGypJfCQckSkZdsgs63uWn9-2Bjr9IZxta1bq0foqIFJYIVhcz_qAk-xmCd6kLV6LBRBNRXf6rp1Hd_iZ7tUodVY8tf-FNYAtkWfFS13fwbpB4W28BPeeF4uQ</recordid><startdate>202301</startdate><enddate>202301</enddate><creator>Wulff, Jörg</creator><creator>Koska, Benjamin</creator><creator>Heufelder, Jens</creator><creator>Janson, Martin</creator><creator>Bäcker, Claus Maximilian</creator><creator>Siregar, Hilda</creator><creator>Behrends, Carina</creator><creator>Bäumer, Christian</creator><creator>Foerster, Andreas</creator><creator>Bechrakis, Nikolaos E.</creator><creator>Timmermann, Beate</creator><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202301</creationdate><title>Commissioning and validation of a novel commercial TPS for ocular proton therapy</title><author>Wulff, Jörg ; Koska, Benjamin ; Heufelder, Jens ; Janson, Martin ; Bäcker, Claus Maximilian ; Siregar, Hilda ; Behrends, Carina ; Bäumer, Christian ; Foerster, Andreas ; Bechrakis, Nikolaos E. ; Timmermann, Beate</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3556-df925cb56960f3c1200c92a1de3cf2f2f79a33affe6c51c0119d286f0d3de3983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Monte Carlo Method</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>proton therapy</topic><topic>Proton Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Protons</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>RayOcular</topic><topic>uveal melanoma</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wulff, Jörg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koska, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heufelder, Jens</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janson, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bäcker, Claus Maximilian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siregar, Hilda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behrends, Carina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bäumer, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foerster, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bechrakis, Nikolaos E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timmermann, Beate</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wulff, Jörg</au><au>Koska, Benjamin</au><au>Heufelder, Jens</au><au>Janson, Martin</au><au>Bäcker, Claus Maximilian</au><au>Siregar, Hilda</au><au>Behrends, Carina</au><au>Bäumer, Christian</au><au>Foerster, Andreas</au><au>Bechrakis, Nikolaos E.</au><au>Timmermann, Beate</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Commissioning and validation of a novel commercial TPS for ocular proton therapy</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2023-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>365</spage><epage>379</epage><pages>365-379</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><abstract>Background Until today, the majority of ocular proton treatments worldwide were planned with the EYEPLAN treatment planning system (TPS). Recently, the commercial, computed tomography (CT)‐based TPS for ocular proton therapy RayOcular was released, which follows the general concepts of model‐based treatment planning approach in conjunction with a pencil‐beam‐type dose algorithm (PBA). Purpose To validate RayOcular with respect to two main features: accurate geometrical representation of the eye model and accuracy of its dose calculation algorithm in combination with an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) eye treatment delivery system. Methods Different 3D‐printed eye‐ball‐phantoms were fabricated to test the geometrical representation of the corresponding CT‐based model, both in orthogonal 2D images for X‐ray image overlay and in fundus view overlaid with a funduscopy. For the latter, the phantom was equipped with a lens matching refraction of the human eye. Funduscopy was acquired in a Zeiss Claus 500 camera. Tantalum clips and fiducials attached to the phantoms were localized in the TPS model, and residual deviations to the actual position in X‐ray images for various orientations of the phantom were determined, after the nominal eye orientation was corrected in RayOcular to obtain a best overall fit. In the fundus view, deviations between known and displayed distances were measured. Dose calculation accuracy of the PBA on a 0.2 mm grid was investigated by comparing between measured lateral and depth–dose profiles in water for various combinations of range, modulation, and field‐size. Ultimately, the modeling of dose distributions behind wedges was tested. A 1D gamma‐test was applied, and the lateral and distal penumbra were further compared. Results Average residuals between model clips and visible clips/fiducials in orthogonal X‐ray images were within 0.3 mm, including different orientations of the phantom. The differences between measured distances on the registered funduscopy image in the RayOcular fundus view and the known ground‐truth were within 1 mm up to 10.5 mm distance from the posterior pole. No clear benefit projection of either polar mode or camera mode could be identified, the latter mimicking camera properties. Measured dose distributions were reproduced with gamma‐test pass‐rates of &gt;95% with 2%/0.3 mm for depth and lateral profiles in the middle of spread‐out Bragg‐peaks. Distal falloff and lateral penumbra were within 0.2 mm for fields without a wedge. For shallow depths, the agreement was worse, reaching pass‐rates down to 80% with 5%/0.3 mm when comparing lateral profiles in air. This is caused by low‐energy protons from a scatter source in the IBA system not modeled by RayOcular. Dose distributions modified by wedges were reproduced, matching the wedge‐induced broadening of the lateral penumbra to within 0.4 mm for the investigated cases and showing the excess dose within the field due to wedge scatter. Conclusion RayOcular was validated for its use with an IBA single scattering delivery nozzle. Geometric modeling of the eye and representation of 2D projections fulfill clinical requirements. The PBA dose calculation reproduces measured distributions and allows explicit handling of wedges, overcoming approximations of simpler dose calculation algorithms used in other systems.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>36195575</pmid><doi>10.1002/mp.16006</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0094-2405
ispartof Medical physics (Lancaster), 2023-01, Vol.50 (1), p.365-379
issn 0094-2405
2473-4209
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2721637794
source MEDLINE; Wiley Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Algorithms
Humans
Monte Carlo Method
Phantoms, Imaging
proton therapy
Proton Therapy - methods
Protons
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods
RayOcular
uveal melanoma
title Commissioning and validation of a novel commercial TPS for ocular proton therapy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T06%3A49%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Commissioning%20and%20validation%20of%20a%20novel%20commercial%20TPS%20for%20ocular%20proton%20therapy&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Wulff,%20J%C3%B6rg&rft.date=2023-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=365&rft.epage=379&rft.pages=365-379&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/mp.16006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2721637794%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2721637794&rft_id=info:pmid/36195575&rfr_iscdi=true