ArticleRadiation research2020
Imaging and Dosimetry Study of Inter-fraction Setup Error in a Murine Xenograft Flank Tumor Radiation Model.
Article in Radiation research, 2020. 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.
- Custom-made 3D-printed X-ray shield for tumor-specific irradiation of xenograft mice.3D printing in medicine · 2025Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modern small animal irradiation platforms provide for accurate delivery of radiation under 3D image guidance. However, leveraging these improvements currently comes at the cost of lower-throughput experimentation. Herein, we characterized setup accuracy and dosimetric robustness for mock/sham irradiation of a murine xenograft flank tumor model using the X-RAD SmART+ with the vendor-supplied Monte Carlo (MC) treatment planning system (SmART ATP). The chosen beam arrangement was parallel-opposing using a 20 mm square collimator, aligned off-axis for ipsilateral lung sparing. Using a cohort of five mice imaged with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) over five consecutive mock-irradiation fractions, we compared inter-fraction setup variability resulting from a vendor-supplied multi-purpose bed with anesthesia nose cone with a more complicated immobilization solution with an integrated bite block with nose cone and Styrofoam platform. A hypothetical "high-throughput" image-guidance scenario was investigated, wherein the day 1 stage coordinates (resulting from CBCT guidance) were applied on days 2-5. Daily inter-fraction setup errors were evaluated per specimen (days 2-5) using CBCT-derived offsets from day 1 stage coordinates. Using the CBCT images and Monte Carlo dose calculation, 3D dosimetric plan robustness was evaluated for the vendor-supplied immobilization solution, for both the high-throughput guidance scenario as well as for use of daily CBCT-based alignment. Inter-fraction setup offset magnitude was 3.6 (±1.5) mm for the vendor-supplied immobilization compared to 3.3 (±1.8) mm for the more complicated solution. For the vendor-supplied immobilization, we found that daily CBCT was needed to adequately cover the flank tumors dosimetrically, given our chosen treatment approach.
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.