ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2021
Comparison of Air-Gaps Effect in a Small Cavity on Dose Calculation for 6 MV Linac.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany authors stated that cavities or air-gaps were the main challenge of dose calculation for head and neck with flattening filter medical linear accelerator (Linac) irradiation.
objectiveThe study aimed to evaluate the effect of air-gap dose calculation on flattening-filter-free (FFF) small field irradiation. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this comparative study, we did the experimental and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to evaluate the presence of heterogeneities in radiotherapy. We simulated the dose distribution on virtual phantom and the patient's CT image to determine the air-gap effect of open small field and modulated photon beam, respectively. The dose ratio of air-gaps to tissue-equivalent was calculated both in Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and MC.
resultsWe found that the dose ratio of air to tissue-equivalent tends to decrease with a larger field size. This correlation was linear with a slope of -0.198±0.001 and -0.161±0.014 for both AAA and MC, respectively. On the other hand, the dose ratio below the air-gap was field size-dependent. The AAA to MC dose calculation as the impact of air-gap thickness and field size varied from 1.57% to 5.35% after the gap. Besides, patient's skin and oral cavity on head and neck case received a large dose discrepancy according to this study.
conclusionThe dose air to tissue-equivalent ratio decreased with smaller air gaps and larger field sizes. Dose correction for AAA calculation of open small field size should be considered after small air-gaps. However, delivered beam from others gantry angle reduced this effect on clinical case.
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.