Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31035267›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2019

Characterization of a non-contact imaging scintillator-based dosimetry system for total skin electron therapy.

Irwin I Tendler, Petr Bruza, Mike Jermyn, Xu Cao, Benjamin B Williams, Lesley A Jarvis, Brian W Pogue, David J Gladstone

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Experimentally Observed Cherenkov Light Generation in the Eye During Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Irwin I TendlerThayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States of America.
Petr Bruza
Mike Jermyn
Xu Cao
Benjamin B Williams
Lesley A Jarvis
Brian W Pogue
David J Gladstone
Dartmouth College · US

Funding

OPTICAL CHERENKOV IMAGING DOSIMETRY IN HUMAN RADIOTHERAPYR01EB023909 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI GLADSTONE, DAVID J., JARVIS, LESLEY A · 2017 to 2024
$4.4M
Video Rate optical verification tool for radiotherapy treatment plansR44CA199681 · NCI · DOSEOPTICS, LLC · PI WARE, WILLIAM · 2016 to 2017
$2.0M
Optical imaging for radiation therapy dose verification on patientsR44CA199836 · NCI · DOSEOPTICS, LLC · PI WARE, WILLIAM · 2015 to 2016
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R44 CA199681NCI NIH HHS R44 CA199836NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB023909
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surface dosimetry is required for ensuring effective administration of total skin electron therapy (TSET); however, its use is often reduced due to the time consuming and complex nature of acquisition. A new surface dose imaging technique was characterized in this study and found to provide accurate, rapid and remote measurement of surface doses without the need for post-exposure processing. Disc-shaped plastic scintillators (1 mm thick  ×  15 mm [Formula: see text]) were chosen as optimal-sized samples and designed to attach to a flat-faced phantom for irradiation using electron beams. Scintillator dosimeter response to radiation damage, dose rate, and temperature were studied. The effect of varying scintillator diameter and thickness on light output was evaluated. Furthermore, the scintillator emission spectra and impact of dosimeter thickness on surface dose were also quantified. Since the scintillators were custom-machined, dosimeter-to-dosimeter variation was tested. Scintillator surface dose measurements were compared to those obtained by optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD). Light output from scintillator dosimeters evaluated in this study was insensitive to radiation damage, temperature, and dose rate. Maximum wavelength of emission was found to be 422 nm. Dose reported by scintillators was linearly related to that from OSLDs. Build-up from placement of scintillators and OSLDs had a similar effect on surface dose (4.9% increase). Variation among scintillator dosimeters was found to be 0.3  ±  0.2%. Scintillator light output increased linearly with dosimeter thickness (~1.9  ×  /mm). All dosimeter diameters tested were able to accurately measure surface dose. Scintillator dosimeters can potentially improve surface dosimetry-associated workflow for TSET in the radiation oncology clinic. Since scintillator data output can be automatically recorded to a patient medical record, the chances of human error in reading out and recording surface dose are minimized.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingAlgorithmsElectronsHumansOptically Stimulated Luminescence DosimetryRadiotherapy DosageScintillation CountingSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31035267
PMCPMC10653344
OpenAlexW2942513646

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.