Citations

Abstract Background Risankizumab (RZB), a high-affinity humanised IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23 p19, has demonstrated sustained efficacy, with a consistent safety profile supporting long-term use for patients (pts) with ulcerative colitis (UC).1-3 This interim analysis reports efficacy and safety through open-label extension (OLE) week (wks) 96 (3 years [yrs] of total maintenance) from the COMMAND OLE. Methods The OLE enrolled RZB-treated pts who completed the 52-wk maintenance substudies and/or responded to 12/24-wk induction therapy.1 All pts received subcutaneous RZB 180 mg (RZB180) starting at OLE wk 0, except those who received prior OLE RZB rescue therapy (1 RZB 1200 mg intravenous dose then RZB 360 mg [RZB360] every 8 wk) and continued RZB360 for 96 wks. Efficacy endpoints (clinical remission [CR] per Adapted Mayo Score [AMS], CR per Partial AMS [PAMS], corticosteroid-free CR per PAMS, clinical response per AMS, clinical response per PAMS, endoscopic improvement, and endoscopic remission) were assessed at OLE wks 0 and 96 and reported as observed (AO) prior to OLE RZB rescue therapy and nonresponder imputation (NRI), among the overall population and by inadequate response to advanced therapy (AT-IR vs non-AT-IR; data cutoff: 25Aug2025). The safety analysis included pts who received at least 1 dose of OLE RZB, with data presented as events/100 pt-yrs. Results At OLE wk 0, approximately 90% pts (N = 1003) completed the study visit; some differences were observed in the clinical characteristics of RZB180 and RZB360-treated pts, including mean AMS (2.0, 3.4); a numerically higher proportion of RZB360-pts were AT-IR (63.1%, 76.8%), and had an endoscopic score of ≥ 3 (12.1%, 31.1%). A lower proportion of RZB360-treated pts achieved CR per AMS (54.8%, 25.2%) at OLE wk 0, while a higher proportion of RZB360-treated pts received OLE rescue therapy (RZB180, 22.1%; RZB360, 34.5%). Efficacy rates remained stable at OLE wks 0 and 96 for CR per AMS; similar results were observed within each subgroup, AT-IR and non-AT-IR (Table 1). Numerically lower efficacy rates were observed in the AT-IR vs non-AT-IR pts at wk 96; efficacy was sustained through OLE wk 96 for all endpoints (AO, NRI; Table 1). Similar rates were observed for any adverse event (AE), severe AE, and serious AE in RZB180 and RZB360-treated pts. No new safety risks were identified in either treatment group (Table 2). Conclusion In the ongoing COMMAND OLE, sustained clinical and endoscopic benefit was observed in pts receiving up to 3 yrs of long-term RZB maintenance therapy, with numerically lower efficacy rates observed for AT-IR vs non-AT-IR vs pts. The long-term safety of RZB remains consistent with a favorable benefit-risk profile, supporting its long-term use in UC. References: 1.Louis E et al. JAMA. 2024;332:881-97. 2.Atreya R et al. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2025;19(S1):i108-i110. [Abstract]. 3.Panaccione R et. al. J Crohn’s and Colitis. 2025, 19(1):jjaf005. Conflict of interest: Atreya, Raja: RA has served as a speaker, or consultant, or received research grants from AbbVie, Abivax, AlfaSigma, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Astra-Zeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion Healthcare, Dr Falk Pharma, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, InDex Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Materia Prima, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Takeda Pharma, Viatris. Louis, Edouard: Education and Reserach Grants for my department: Abbvie, Takeda, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Fresenius-Kabi, Celltrion, EG pharma, Sandoz, Falk Personal Fees for conferences, advisory boards and consultancy: Abbvie, Takeda, Ferring, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Lilly, Galapagos, Celltrion, Arena, BMS, Falk, Biokuris, Fresenius-Kabi, Thabor Loftus, Jr, Edward: Grant: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Receptos, Robarts Clinical Trials, Takeda, Theravance, UCB. Personal Fees: AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, Iterative Scopes, Janssen, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB. Rubin, David T.: Grant support: Takeda Pharmaceuticals Consultant: Abbvie, Abivax SA, Altrubio, Athos Therapeutics, Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Connect BioPharma, Eli Lilly & Co., Genentech (Roche) Inc., Iterative Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Mirador, Odyssey Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Spyre, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Vedanta Biosciences, and Ventyx. Dubinsky, Marla C: Personal Fees: Consultant or Advisory Board: Abbvie, Abivax, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Genentech, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Sanofi, Spyre, Target RWE, Takeda Other: Shareholder, Co-founder, Board of Directors of Trellus Health Co-Founder Mi Test Health Hisamatsu, Tadakazu: Grant support: Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, EA pharma Co. Ltd., AbbVie, JIMRO Co. Ltd., Zeria Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Takeda, Pfizer., Mochida, Boston Scientific Corporation, Kissei Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. Consulting: Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, EA pharma Co. Ltd., AbbVie GK, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abivax, MSD, Chugai. Lecture fee: Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, AbbVie GK, EA pharma Co. Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., JIMRO Co., Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda, Pfizer, Kissei Mambetsariev, Nurbek: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock and/or stock options. Kalabic, Jasmina: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock and/or stock options. Cheng, Peiyao: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock and/or stock options. Chen, Su: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock and/or stock options. O’Brien, Dan: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock and/or options. Morisset, Pierre: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock and/or stock options. Duan, W. Rachel: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock and/or stock options. Panaccione, Remo: Grant: Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda. Other: Consultant for: Abbott, AbbVie, Abbivax, Alimentiv (formerly Robarts), Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Cosmos Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elan, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Glaxo-Smith Kline, JAMP Bio, Janssen, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Oppilan Pharma, Organon, Pandion Pharma, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, Sandoz, Satisfai Health, Shire, Sublimity Therapeutics, Spyre Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Theravance Biopharma, Trellus, Union Biopharma, Viatris, Ventyx, UCB Speaker’s Fees for: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Organon, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Shire, Takeda Pharmaceuticals Advisory Boards for: AbbVie, Alimentiv (formerly Robarts), Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Glaxo-Smith Kline, JAMP Bio, Janssen, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, Oppilan Pharma, Organon, Pandion Pharma, Pfizer, Progenity, Protagonist Therapeutics, Roche, SandozShire, Sublimity Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Ventyx.

Sustained injury to renal tubular epithelial cells (TECs), driven by excessive autophagy, is a critical mechanism underlying kidney fibrosis. Our previous work identified JLP — a TEC-expressed scaffolding protein — as an endogenous antifibrotic factor that counteracts TGF-β1–induced autophagy and fibrogenesis. However, the mechanism underlying JLP downregulation in renal fibrosis remains unclear. Here, we delineated a TGF-β1/LEF1/β-catenin/JLP axis that governs TEC autophagy through a dichotomous regulatory circuit. Under physiological conditions, low levels of β-catenin and LEF1 with minimal nuclear localization permitted normal JLP expression, which in turn maintained autophagy in check. In contrast, during renal injury, TGF-β1 promoted the expression and nuclear translocation of β-catenin and LEF1, which together suppressed JLP transcription. This loss of JLP-mediated inhibition led to unchecked autophagy and exacerbated fibrotic damage. Analyses of kidney tissues from patients with CKD, murine fibrotic kidneys, and cultured HK-2 cells confirmed consistent JLP downregulation accompanied by upregulation and nuclear accumulation of LEF1 and β-catenin. Therapeutic intervention using the β-catenin/LEF1 inhibitor iCRT3 or LEF1-targeted silencing in murine fibrosis models restored JLP expression, attenuated TEC autophagy, and ameliorated renal fibrosis. These findings revealed an autoregulatory circuit controlling TEC autophagy and fibrogenesis, and supported LEF1 and β-catenin as potential therapeutic targets in CKD.

Background: Institutions that participate in PCORnet ® transform their local electronic health record (EHR) data into the PCORnet ® Common Data Model (CDM), which is then used to generate data extracts for PCORnet ® Studies. PCORnet ® Studies can also include institutions that do not participate in PCORnet, and for these organizations, the cost of instantiating a PCORnet ® CDM can be prohibitive. Fast Health care Interoperability Resources (FHIR) provides an alternative method of obtaining EHR data. Objective: To determine whether data obtained through FHIR might be a viable study solution for those sites that do not participate in PCORnet. ® This mixed-methods project had 2 objectives: (1) survey sites participating in PCORnet on the availability of FHIR (FHIR survey); (2) compare the coverage of a FHIR-based data extract using REDCap with one from the PCORnet ® CDM across 3 sites (FHIR extract). Methods: (1) FHIR survey: A series of questions were asked about the use of FHIR in a production capacity. (2) FHIR extract: REDCap FHIR and PCORnet ® CDM extracts were created based on study variables from 2 prior PCORnet ® Studies. Data were extracted for 40 patients and concordance measures were computed between the 2 sources. Results: (1) FHIR survey: Of responding organizations, 73% (n=49) reported that FHIR was deployed in a production capacity. (2) FHIR extract: Results were highly variable. Cohen kappa ranged from 0.01 to 0.76 for certain diagnoses, 0.24 to 0.84 for laboratory results, and 0.1 to 0.87 for medications. Conclusions: Despite differences in data, certain studies may be well-suited for FHIR-based extracts.

Abstract Column-type wrists, which exhibit increased scaphoid flexion during radial deviation, often experience greater loss of motion after periscaphoid arthrodesis compared with row-type wrists. Dynamic radiographic series are typically used to differentiate these kinematic patterns. In this study, we evaluate capitate morphology as a means of predicting column- or row-type carpal kinematics. This study investigated whether wrist kinematic patterns could be predicted using simple anteroposterior (AP) radiographs. We hypothesized that capitate morphology, given its close articulation with the scaphoid, influences these patterns. We analyzed 75 wrist motion radiographic series from 45 patients. Capitates were classified as either Type I (rectangular) or Type II (pentagonal) based on their shape. Wrist kinematic patterns were categorized as row- or column-type based on the degree of scaphoid length shortening during radial deviation. Our analysis revealed that a Type II capitate was a significant predictor of column-type wrists, with an odds ratio of 6.01 compared with Type I (p = 0.014). Furthermore, Type II capitates were associated with increased scaphoid flexion and reduced translation. Capitate morphology, as assessed from a plain AP radiograph, can serve as an easily accessible marker and reliable predictor of wrist motion patterns. This could potentially aid in surgical planning and patient counseling, particularly when dynamic radiographic series are not feasible. Diagnostic, Level III.

BACKGROUND: Chronic anal fissures are a painful condition characterized by a tear in the anal mucosa. Botulinum toxin injection is a minimally invasive treatment option, but long-term effectiveness in recurrent or persistent cases remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the long-term outcomes of botulinum toxin injections for the treatment of chronic anal fissures. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary academic center. PATIENTS: Adults with chronic anal fissures treated with botulinum toxin between 2018 and 2023 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short- and long-term healing, recurrence, or persistence after botulinum toxin injection. Persistent or recurrent fissure(s) were followed for outcomes after subsequent repeat injections or surgery (lateral internal sphincterotomy or fissurectomy). RESULTS: Among 161 patients, 45.3% (n = 73) experienced short-term healing after botulinum toxin as first-line therapy, but only 26% (n = 42) had sustained healing. Subsequent treatment patterns were similar for recurrent (n = 31) and persistent (n = 88) fissures: 35% versus 31% no further intervention, 55% versus 42% multiple subsequent injections, 10% versus 23% surgery, respectively. Sustained healing was achieved in 63% (n = 10/16) of patients who underwent surgery compared with 37% (n = 14/38) who had repeat botulinum toxin injections ( p = 0.06). Only 49% achieved sustained healing after a single injection, multiple injections, or injection(s) with surgery. Complications included 5 episodes of mild fecal incontinence in the botulinum toxin group and 2 instances of surgical site infection in the surgery group. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a single-institution, retrospective study design and loss to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Botulinum toxin remains a valuable therapy for chronic anal fissures. Many patients have persistent or recurrent fissures after botulinum toxin injection and undergo additional interventions. Despite multiple interventions, only half of the patients achieved sustained healing, regardless of the treatment pattern. These data do not support the use of botulinum toxin over surgery for the treatment of chronic fissures, are helpful for counseling patients on the safety profile of each, and set expectations regarding the need for multiple interventions. See Video Abstract . RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DEL USO DE TOXINA BOTULÍNICA EN EL TRATAMIENTO DE FISURAS ANALES CRÓNICAS: UN ENFOQUE GRADUAL PARA EL MANEJO DE CASOS RECURRENTES Y PERSISTENTES ANTECEDENTES: Las fisuras anales crónicas son una afección dolorosa caracterizada por un desgarro en la mucosa anal. La inyección de toxina botulínica es una opción de tratamiento mínimamente invasiva, pero su eficacia a largo plazo en casos recurrentes o persistentes sigue sin estar clara. OBJETIVO: Evaluar los resultados a largo plazo de las inyecciones de toxina botulínica para el tratamiento de las fisuras. DISEÑO: Revisión retrospectiva. ENTORNO: Centro académico terciario. PACIENTES: Adultos con fisuras crónicas tratados con toxina botulínica entre 2018 y 2023. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Curación a corto y largo plazo, recurrencia o persistencia después de la inyección de toxina botulínica. Se realizó un seguimiento de las fisuras persistentes o recurrentes para evaluar los resultados después de repetidas inyecciones o cirugía (esfinterotomía interna lateral o fisurectomía). RESULTADOS: Entre los 161 pacientes, el 45,3 % (n = 73) experimentó una curación a corto plazo tras la toxina botulínica como terapia de primera línea, pero solo el 26 % (n = 42) tuvo una curación sostenida. Los patrones de tratamiento posteriores fueron similares para las fisuras recurrentes (n = 31) o persistentes (n = 88): 35 % frente a 31 % sin intervención adicional, 55 % frente a 42 % con múltiples inyecciones posteriores, 10 % frente a 23 % con cirugía, respectivamente. Se logró una curación sostenida en el 63 % (n = 10/16) de los pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía, en comparación con el 37 % (n = 14/38) que recibió inyecciones repetidas de toxina botulínica ( p = 0,06). Solo el 49 % logró una curación sostenida después de una sola inyección, múltiples inyecciones o inyecciones con cirugía. Las complicaciones incluyeron 5 episodios de incontinencia fecal leve en el grupo de la toxina botulínica y dos casos de infección en el sitio quirúrgico en el grupo de la cirugía. LIMITACIONES: Estudio retrospectivo de una sola institución y pérdida de seguimiento. CONCLUSIÓN: La toxina botulínica sigue siendo una terapia valiosa para las fisuras anales crónicas. Muchos pacientes presentan fisuras persistentes o recurrentes tras la inyección de toxina botulínica y se someten a intervenciones adicionales. A pesar de las múltiples intervenciones, solo la mitad de los pacientes lograron una curación sostenida, independientemente del patrón de tratamiento. Estos datos no respaldan el uso de la toxina botulínica frente a la cirugía para el tratamiento de las fisuras crónicas, pero son útiles para asesorar a los pacientes sobre el perfil de seguridad de cada una y establecer expectativas con respecto a la necesidad de múltiples intervenciones. ( AI-generated translation )

Abstract Background OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT‐A) is an established preventive treatment for chronic migraine but involves 31 to 40 injections per session, often causing discomfort and post‐procedural headaches. Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is a noninvasive therapy with efficacy in migraine treatment via conditioned pain modulation but has not been evaluated for procedural pain. This study evaluated REN's effectiveness in reducing acute procedural pain and postprocedural headache associated with BoNT‐A injections. Methods This was an investigator‐initiated single‐center, randomized, single‐blind, sham‐controlled crossover study enrolled 80 adults (aged 22 to 74 years) with chronic migraine undergoing routine BoNT‐A treatment. Each participant received one injection session without a device, followed by sessions using active REN and sham in randomized order. REN was applied to the upper arm 10 min prior to injections and removed after injection completion. Pain intensity was measured using a visual analog scale (0 to 100) at pre‐procedure, intra‐procedure, and post‐procedure time points. The primary outcome was procedural pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included post‐procedural headache incidence and adverse events. Due to clear benefit, the study was terminated early based on predefined stopping criteria. Results Final analysis of 60 participants (mean age 48.0 years; 49/60, 82% female) demonstrated that pre‐procedural pain levels were not significantly different between baseline and the active REN or sham ( p > 0.999 and p = 0.485, respectively). However, during and after BoNT‐A administration, the active REN group reported significantly lower pain scores compared to both the sham and baseline conditions. At intra‐procedure, the REN group experienced a mean pain reduction of 15.0 points ( p < 0.001), and at post‐procedure experienced a 19.1‐point reduction ( p < 0.001). Sham treatment did not result in significant pain reduction compared to baseline ( p > 0.999 for both intra‐procedure and post‐procedure). Additionally, REN lowered the incidence of headache as an adverse event, with only 15% (8/52) of participants experiencing post‐procedural headache compared to 55% (29/53) in the sham group and 39% (23/59) at baseline (odds ratio = 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.10 to 0.69, p = 0.008). No additional adverse events were reported. Conclusions REN significantly reduces procedural pain and post‐procedural headache associated with BoNT‐A injections for chronic migraine and may serve as a noninvasive, easily implemented pain management strategy for acute procedural pain. REN represents a promising approach to improving patient comfort during routine migraine treatment as well as reducing post‐procedural headache.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) can cause radiation-induced changes (RIC), but its interactions with AVM embolization are not well established. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of previous embolization on RIC in SRS-treated AVM patients. METHODS: Data of AVM patients treated with single-session SRS from 1987 to 2018 were retrieved from the International Radiosurgery Research Foundation. Univariable and stepwise backward logistic regression models were used to identify RIC predictors. Patients were stratified into those who received pre-SRS embolization (E + SRS) vs those who did not (SRS-only). Radiologic RIC (rRIC) was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic RIC (sRIC) and permanent symptomatic RIC (pRIC). RESULTS: Among 1187 AVM patients, the mean age was 36.4 years (SD 16.8), with 50.4% female patients. AVMs had a mean untreated AVM volume of 5.2 cm 3 . A total of 130 patients (11%) underwent neoadjuvant embolization (E + SRS). The overall rRIC and sRIC rates were 32.8% and 12.1%, respectively, with time to rRIC and sRIC being significantly longer in the E + SRS vs SRS-only cohorts (103.6 ± 339.4 vs 11.3 ± 12.5 and 60.4 ± 262.9 vs 9.5 ± 9.0 months, respectively). Seizures at presentation and ≥3-cm untreated AVM volume significantly correlated with a higher likelihood of rRIC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.32 [1.25-4.30] and aOR 2.77 [1.24-6.16], respectively). Age and pre-SRS embolization were associated with a significantly lower risk of rRIC (aOR 0.97 [0.96-0.99] and aOR 0.32 [0.13-0.74], respectively). The E + SRS cohort had significantly reduced odds of rRIC (aOR = 0.37 [0.15-0.89]) and pRIC (aOR = 0.04 [0.00-0.30]) after adjusting for significant covariates. CONCLUSION: Seizures at presentation and larger untreated AVM volume were independently associated with an increased risk of rRIC, whereas older age and pre-SRS embolization were protective. Notably, patients who underwent embolization before SRS had lower odds of rRIC and pRIC, with delayed onset of complications compared with SRS-only.

Abstract Background Standardizing beam modeling in the treatment planning system is challenging due to machine‐specific configuration variations. Because of the proton therapy system (PTS) complexity and continuous development, there is no vendor's representative (“golden”) beam data like in LINACs at this stage. Purpose The primary goal of this study is to create a PTS‐specific repository of source model parameters and beam commissioning data for scanning proton therapy treatment planning systems and establish a set of reference values with associated bands of variations for this data. Methods We conducted a survey of 31 PTSs at 27 proton therapy centers to gather beam commissioning source model parameters used in their treatment planning system, ensuring a diverse selection of PTSs from major vendors: Hitachi, IBA, Varian, and Mevion. For each proton therapy center, we collected (i) beam meterset calibration in protons per MU, (ii) in‐air spot size at isocenter in terms of standard deviation in x‐ (crossline, σ x ) and y‐ (inline, σ y ) directions, (iii) in‐air angular spread at isocenter in x‐direction (θ x ) and y‐direction (θ y ) and (iv) distal falloff. For each PTS, we plotted each parameter as a function of nominal energy and performed polynomial regression analysis with optimal model selection based on Akaike Information Criterion. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to quantify inter‐PTS variability and generated uncertainty bands representing standard deviations across PTSs for each parameter. Additionally, we computed percentage deviations of each individual PTS from the overall multi‐vendor mean to identify systematic vendor‐specific patterns and outliers across the 31 total PTSs analyzed. Results Multi‐vendor beam parameter analysis across 31 PTSs revealed systematic vendor‐specific patterns in inter‐PTS consistency and energy dependencies. Beam meterset calibration demonstrated excellent inter‐PTS consistency across most vendors (ICC: Varian ProBeam ≈ 0, IBA Proteus ONE = 0.006, Mevion S250i with HYPERSCAN = 0.015), with IBA Proteus PLUS systems showing moderate variation (ICC = 0.156 for the dedicated nozzle, ICC = 0.248, for the universal nozzle). Spot size and angular spread variability were highly vendor‐dependent, ranging from excellent consistency in IBA Proteus ONE to substantial variation in IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle (angular spread ICC = 0.566). Distal falloff maintained excellent consistency across all vendors (ICC < 0.023), indicating reliable energy spread characteristics. Uncertainty band analysis revealed characteristic energy‐dependent patterns, with most systems showing larger uncertainties at lower energies for spot size and angular spread, while IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle exhibited the largest uncertainty bands overall. Percentage deviation analysis demonstrated vendor‐specific clustering patterns, with some systems showing systematic positive or negative deviations from the multi‐vendor mean. Conclusions The reference data provided in this work will help to cross‐check the beam model during treatment planning system commissioning. Furthermore, this information is useful for Monte Carlo applications and research, where beam characteristics are required to set up phase space parameters, thereby avoiding the need to model the entire PTS. Finally, the results of this study will have indispensable educational value by providing valuable insights into the characteristics and capabilities of different PTSs.