ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2015
Design and implementation of a "cheese" phantom-based Tomotherapy TLD dose intercomparison.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robustness assessment of radiotherapy treatment plans in Switzerland.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Article
- Novel methodologies for dosimetry audits: Adapting to advanced radiotherapy techniques.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2018Review
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
backgroundThe unique beam-delivery technique of Tomotherapy machines (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) necessitates tailored quality assurance. This requirement also applies to external dose intercomparisons. Therefore, the aim of the 2014 SSRMP (Swiss Society of Radiobiology and Medical Physics) dosimetry intercomparison was to compare two set-ups with different phantoms. MATERIALS AND
methodsA small cylindrical Perspex phantom, which is similar to the IROC phantom (Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Houston, Tex.), and the "cheese" phantom, which is provided by the Tomotherapy manufacturer to all institutions, were used. The standard calibration plans for the TomoHelical and TomoDirect irradiation techniques were applied. These plans are routinely used for dose output calibration in Tomotherapy institutions. We tested 20 Tomotherapy machines in Germany and Switzerland. The ratio of the measured (Dm) to the calculated (Dc) dose was assessed for both phantoms and irradiation techniques. The Dm/Dc distributions were determined to compare the suitability of the measurement set-ups investigated.
resultsThe standard deviations of the TLD-measured (thermoluminescent dosimetry) Dm/Dc ratios for the "cheese" phantom were 1.9 % for the TomoHelical (19 measurements) and 1.2 % (11 measurements) for the TomoDirect irradiation techniques. The corresponding ratios for the Perspex phantom were 2.8 % (18 measurements) and 1.8 % (11 measurements).
conclusionCompared with the Perspex phantom-based set-up, the "cheese" phantom-based set-up without individual planning was demonstrated to be more suitable for Tomotherapy dose checks. Future SSRMP dosimetry intercomparisons for Tomotherapy machines will therefore be based on the "cheese" phantom set-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26087907What 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.