ArticleThe British journal of radiology2015
Effect of secondary particles on image quality of dynamic flat panels in carbon ion scanning beam treatment.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveReal-time markerless tumour tracking using radiographic fluoroscopic imaging is one of the better solutions to improving respiratory-gated radiotherapy. However, particle beams cause secondary particles from patients, which could affect radiographs. Here, we evaluated the quality of radiographs during carbon ion pencil beam scanning (CPBS) irradiation for respiratory gating.
methodsA water phantom and chest phantom were used. The phantoms were irradiated with CPBS at 290 MeV n(-1) from orthogonal directions. Dose rates were 3.4 × 10(8), 1.14 × 10(8) and 3.79 × 10(7) particles per second. A dynamic flat panel detector (DFPD) was installed on the upstream (DFPD1) or downstream (DFPD2) side of the vertical irradiation port. DFPD images were acquired during CPBS at 15.00, 7.50 and 3.75 frames per second (fps). Charge on the DFPD was cleaned using fast readout technique every 30 fps. DFPD images were acquired during CPBS with radiographic exposure, and results with and without fast readout technique were compared.
resultsSecondary particles were visualized as spots or streak-like shapes. Capture of secondary particles from the horizontal beam direction was lower with fast readout technique than without it. With regard to beam irradiation direction dependency, CPBS from the horizontal direction resulted in a greater magnitude of secondary particles reaching DFPD2 than reaching DFPD1. When CPBS was delivered from the vertical direction, however, the magnitude of secondary particles on both DFPDs was very similar.
conclusionFast readout technique minimized the effect of secondary particles on DFPD images during CPBS. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This technique may be useful for markerless tumour tracking for respiratory gating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.