ArticleRadiological physics and technology2016
Verification of the dose attenuation of a newly developed vacuum cushion for intensity-modulated radiation therapy of prostate cancer.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2016. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Product development of a condenser dosimeter using a skin-insulated USB-A-substrate with a silicon X-ray diode.Radiological physics and technology · 2019Article
- Dosimetric effects of a repositioning head frame system and treatment planning system dose calculation accuracy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study measured the dose attenuation of a newly developed vacuum cushion for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of prostate cancer, and verified the effect of dose-correction accuracy in a radiation treatment planning system (RTPS). The new cushion was filled with polystyrene foams inflated 15-fold (Sφ ≒ 1 mm) to reduce contraction caused by air suction and was compared to normal polystyrene foam inflated to 50-fold (Sφ ≒ 2 mm). The dose attenuation at several thicknesses of compression bag filled with normal and low-inflation materials was measured using an ionization chamber; and then the calculated RTPS dose was compared to ionization chamber measurements, while the new cushion was virtually included as region of interest in the calculation area. The dose attenuation rate of the normal cushion was 0.010 %/mm (R (2) = 0.9958), compared to 0.031 %/mm (R (2) = 0.9960) in the new cushion. Although the dose attenuation rate of the new cushion was three times that of the normal cushion, the high agreement between calculated dose by RTPS and ionization chamber measurements was within approximately 0.005 %/mm. Thus, the results of the current study indicate that the new cushion may be effective in clinical use for dose calculation accuracy in RTPS.
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.