ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2020
Dosimetric characteristics of the INTRABEAM ® system with spherical applicators in the presence of air gaps and tissue heterogeneities.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive clinical dosimetry in contact skin interventional radiotherapy (modern brachytherapy): Practical tips and tricks.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026Article
- Dosimetric Impact of Air Gaps in High-Dose-Rate Contact Interventional Radiotherapy (Modern Brachytherapy) for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer of the Ear.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Emerging Technologies in Radiation Therapy: Replacing Traditional Isotope-based Modalities.Health physics · 2025Review
- Image Guided Intraoperative Radiation Therapy After Surgical Resection of Brain Metastases: A First In-Human Feasibility Report.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Dosimetric comparison between microSelectron iridium-192 and flexi cobalt-60 sources in high-dose-rate brachytherapy using Geant4 Monte Carlo code.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2023Article
- A Comparison between Electron Gamma Shower, National Research Council/Easy Particle Propagation (EGSnrc/Epp) and Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP) in Simulation of the INTRABEAM ® System with Spherical Applicators.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of the INTRABEAM ® system in the presence of air gaps between the surface of applicators (APs) and tumor bed. Additionally, the effect of tissue heterogeneities was another focus. Investigating the dosimetric characteristics of the INTRABEAM® system is essential to deliver the required dose to the tumor bed correctly and reduce the delivered dose to the ribs and lung. Choosing the correct AP size and fitting it to the lumpectomy cavity is essential to remove the effect of air gaps and avoid inaccurate dose delivery. Consequently, the Geant4 toolkit was used to simulate the INTRABEAM ® system with spherical APs of various sizes. The wall effect of the ion chamber (IC) PTW 34013 used in the present study was checked. The simulations were validated in comparison with measurements, and then used to calculate any inaccuracies in dose delivery in the presence of 4- and 10-mm air gaps between the surface of the APs and the tumor bed. Also, the doses received due to tissue heterogeneities were characterized. It turned out that measurements and simulations were approximately in agreement (± 2%) for all sizes of APs. The perturbation factor introduced by the IC due to differences in graphite-coated polyethylene and air as compared to the phantom material was approximately equal to one for all AP. The greatest relative dose delivery difference was observed for an AP with a diameter of 1.5 cm, i.e., 44% and 70% in the presence of 4- and 10-mm air gaps, respectively. In contrast, the lowest relative dose delivery difference was observed for an AP with a diameter of 5 cm, i.e., 24% and 42% in the presence of 4- and 10-mm air gaps, respectively. Increasing APs size showed a decrease in relative dose delivery difference due to the presence of air gaps. In addition, the undesired dose received by the ribs turned out to be higher when a treatment site closer to the ribs was assumed. The undesired dose received by the ribs increased as the AP size increased. The lung dose turned out to be decreased due to the shielding effect of the ribs, small lung density, and long separation distance from the AP surface.
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.