ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
CT-less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D Printing a Clinically Available Solution From Plaster-Based Positives in Superficial Radiation Therapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Feasibility study: Use of an optical scanning system to obtain 3D body surface images suitable for total skin electron therapy treatment dosimetry.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A Smartphone-Based Motion Monitoring System for Surface Guided Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional surface scanning of patients to extend computed tomography field of view and scan length for dose calculation and collision avoidance in radiotherapy treatment planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Trueness and precision of facial scan and virtual patient representation workflow.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based dose prediction for low-energy electron beam superficial radiotherapy.Precision radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Optical Surface-guided Radiation Therapy for Upper and Lower Limb Sarcomas: An Analysis of Setup Errors and Clinical Target Volume-To-Planning Target Volume Margins.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of optical 3D scanning system for radiotherapy use.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- A Software Suite for Limb Volume Analysis Applicable in Clinical Settings: Upper Limb Quantification.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeElectron radiation therapy dose distributions are affected by irregular body surface contours. This study investigates the feasibility of three-dimensional (3D) cameras to substitute for the treatment planning computerized tomography (CT) scan by capturing the body surfaces to be treated for accurate electron beam dosimetry.
methodsDosimetry was compared for six electron beam treatments to the nose, toe, eye, and scalp using full CT scan, CT scan with Hounsfield Unit (HU) overridden to water (mimic 3D camera cases), and flat-phantom techniques. Radiation dose was prescribed to a depth on the central axis per physician's order, and the monitor units (MUs) were calculated. The 3D camera spatial accuracy was evaluated by comparing the 3D surface of a head phantom captured by a 3D camera and that generated with the CT scan in the treatment planning system. A clinical case is presented, and MUs were calculated using the 3D camera body contour with HU overridden to water.
resultsAcross six cases the average change in MUs between the full CT and the 3Dwater (CT scan with HU overridden to water) calculations was 1.3% with a standard deviation of 1.0%. The corresponding hotspots had a mean difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.9%. The 3D camera captured surface of a head phantom was found to have a 0.59 mm standard deviation from the surface derived from the CT scan. In-vivo dose measurements (213 ± 8 cGy) agreed with the 3D-camera planned dose of 209 ± 6 cGy, compared to 192 ± 6 cGy for the flat-phantom calculation (same MUs).
conclusionsElectron beam dosimetry is affected by irregular body surfaces. 3D cameras can capture irregular body contours which allow accurate dosimetry of electron beam treatment as an alternative to costly CT scans with no extra exposure to radiation. Tools and workflow for clinical implementation are provided.
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.