ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Does the apex optimization line matter for single-channel vaginal cylinder brachytherapy planning?
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of vaginal cylinder inhomogeneity on the HDR brachytherapy dose calculations using Monte Carlo simulations.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study is to test the impact of the use of the apex optimization line for new vaginal cylinder (VC) applicators. New single channel VC applicators (Varian) that have different top thicknesses but the same diameters as the old VC applicators (2.0 cm diameter, 2.3, 2.6, 3.0, and 3.5 cm) were compared using phantom studies. Old VC applicator plans without the apex optimization line were also compared to the plans with an apex optimization line. The apex doses were monitored at 5 mm depth doses (eight points) where a prescription dose (Rx) of 6 Gy was prescribed. VC surface doses (eight points) were also analyzed. The new VC applicator plans without apex optimization line presented significantly lower 5-mm depth doses over the Rx (on average -31 ± 7%, P < 0.00001) due to thicker VC tops (3.4 ± 1.1 mm thicker with the range of 1.2-4.4 mm) than the old VC applicators. Old VC applicator plans also showed a statistically significant reduction (P < 0.00001) due to the Ir-192 source anisotropic effect at the apex region, but the percent reduction over the Rx was only -7 ± 9%. However, by adding the apex optimization line to the new VC applicator plans, the plans improved 5-mm depth doses (-7 ± 9% over Rx) that were not statistically different from old VC applicator plans (P = 0.923), along with apex VC surface doses (-22 ± 10% over old VC vs -46 ± 7% without using apex optimization line). The use of the apex optimization line is important in order to avoid significant additional cold doses (-24 ± 2%) at the prescription depth (5 mm) of the apex, specifically for the new VC applicators that have thicker tops. A template-based vaginal cylinder planning reduced the intra- and inter-planner variations of manual generation of apex optimization line, along with treatment time.
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.