Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26894346›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016

Evaluation of MVCT imaging dose levels during helical IGRT: comparison between ion chamber, TLD, and EBT3 films.

Jean-Pierre Mege, Sun Wenzhao, Attila Veres, Guillaume Auzac, Ibrahima Diallo, Dimitri Lefkopoulos

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jean-Pierre MegeGustave Roussy Cancer Campus. jean-pierre.mege@gustaveroussy.fr.
Sun Wenzhao
Attila Veres
Guillaume Auzac
Ibrahima Diallo
Dimitri Lefkopoulos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the dose on megavoltage CT (MVCT) images required for tomotherapy. As imaging possibilities are often used before each treatment and usually used several times before the session, we tried to evaluate the dose delivered during the procedure. For each scanning mode (fine, normal, and coarse), we first established the relative variation of these doses according to different technical parameters (explored length, patient setup). These dose variations measured with the TomoPhant, also known as Cheese phantom, showed the expected variations (due to the variation of scattered radiation) of 15% according to the explored length and ± 5% according to the phantom setup (due to the variation of the point of measurement in the bore). In order to estimate patient doses, an anthropomorphic phantom was used for thermoluminescent and film dosimetry. The degree of agreement between the two methods was very satisfactory (the differences correspond to 5 mGy per imaging session) for the three sites studied (head & neck, thorax, and abdomen). These measurements allowed us to estimate the delivered dose of between 1 cGy and 4 cGy according to the site and imaging mode. Finally, we attempted to investigate a way to calculate this delivered dose in our patients from the study conducted on a cylindrical phantom and by taking into account data from the initial kV-CT scan. The results we obtained were close to our measurements, with discrepancies below 5 mGy per MVCT.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingAbdominal NeoplasmsFilm DosimetryHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedThoracic NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID26894346
PMCPMC5690206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.