Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31216296›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Tungsten filled 3D printed field shaping devices for electron beam radiation therapy.

Lawrie Skinner, Benjamin P Fahimian, Amy S Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Transitioning to Environmentally Sustainable, Climate-Smart Radiation Oncology Care.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Nontoxic electron collimators.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021
    Article
  12. Additive manufacturing (3D printing) in superficial brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors.

Lawrie SkinnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7317-1642
Benjamin P FahimianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America.
Amy S YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9730-5593

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeElectron radiotherapy is a labor-intensive treatment option that is complicated by the need for field shaping blocks. These blocks are typically made from casting Cerrobend alloys containing lead and cadmium. This is a highly toxic process with limited precision. This work aims to provide streamlined and more precise electron radiotherapy by 3D using printing techniques.

methodsThe 3D printed electron cutout consists of plastic shells filled with 2 mm diameter tungsten ball bearings. Five clinical Cerrobend defined field were compared to the planned fields by measuring the light field edge when mounted in the electron applicator on a linear accelerator. The dose transmitted through the 3D printed and Cerrobend cutouts was measured using an IC profiler ion chamber array with 6 MeV and 16 MeV beams. Dose profiles from the treatment planning system were also compared to the measured dose profiles. Centering and full width half maximum (FWHM) metrics were taken directly from the profiler software.

resultsThe transmission of a 16MeV beam through a 12 mm thick layer of tungsten ball bearings agreed within 1% of a 15 mm thick Cerrobend block (measured with an ion chamber array). The radiation fields shaped by ball bearing filled 3D printed cutout were centered within 0.4 mm of the planned outline, whereas the Cerrobend cutout fields had shift errors of 1-3 mm, and shape errors of 0.5-2 mm. The average shift of Cerrobend cutouts was 2.3 mm compared to the planned fields (n = 5). Beam penumbra of the 3D printed cutouts was found to be equivalent to the 15 mm thick Cerrobend cutout. The beam profiles agreed within 1.2% across the whole 30 cm profile widths.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that with a proper quality assurance procedure, 3D-printed cutouts can provide more accurate electron radiotherapy with reduced toxicity compared to traditional Cerrobend methods.

Indexed as

Printing, Three-DimensionalElectronsHazardous SubstancesHumansLeadMonte Carlo MethodNeoplasmsParticle AcceleratorsRadionuclide ImagingRadiotherapyRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTungstenHazardous SubstancesLeadTungsten

Identifiers

PMID31216296
PMCPMC6584017

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.