Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34174932›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021

Clinical utility of Gafchromic film in an MRI-guided linear accelerator.

Ilma Xhaferllari, Joshua P Kim, Ruchira Liyanage, Chang Liu, Dongsu Du, Anthony Doemer, Indrin J Chetty, Ning Wen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Characterization of a new low-dose and low-energy Gafchromic film LD-V1.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Effect of glass compression plate on EBT-XD film dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance of stereotactic body radiotherapy.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors.

Ilma XhaferllariDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Troy, MI, USA.
Joshua P KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 West Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, USA.
Ruchira LiyanageDepartment of Chemical Engineering and Material Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Chang LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 West Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, USA.
Dongsu DuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 West Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, USA.
Anthony DoemerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 West Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, USA.
Indrin J ChettyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 West Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, USA.
Ning WenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 West Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI, USA. nwen1@hfhs.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9776-8056

Funding

American Cancer Society RSG-15-137-01-CCE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study is to comprehensively evaluate the suitability of Gafchromic EBT3 and EBT-XD film for dosimetric quality assurance in 0.35 T MR-guided radiotherapy.

methodsA 0.35 T magnetic field strength was utilized to evaluate magnetic field effects on EBT3 and EBT-XD Gafchromic films by studying the effect of film exposure time within the magnetic field using two timing sequences and film not exposed to MR, the effect of magnetic field exposure on the crystalline structure of the film, and the effect of orientation of the film with respect to the bore within the magnetic field. The orientation of the monomer crystal was qualitatively evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) compared to unirradiated film. Additionally, dosimetric impact was evaluated through measurements of a series of open field irradiations (0.83 × 0.83-cm

resultsNo visual changes in crystal orientation were observed in any evaluated SEM images nor were any optical density differences observed between films irradiated inside or outside the magnetic field for both EBT3 and EBT-XD film. At small field sizes, the average difference along dose profiles measured in film compared to the same points measured using an independent dosimeter and to predicted treatment planning system values was 1.23% and 1.56%, respectively. For large field sizes, the average differences were 1.91% and 1.21%, respectively. In open field tests, the average gamma pass rates were 99.8% and 97.2%, for 3%/3 mm and 3%/1 mm, respectively. The median (interquartile range) 3%/3 mm gamma pass rates in conventional QA cases were 98.4% (96.3 to 99.2%), and 3%/1 mm in SBRT QA cases were 95.8% (95.0 to 97.3%).

conclusionsMR exposure at 0.35 T had negligible effects on EBT3 and EBT-XD Gafchromic film. Dosimetric film results were comparable to planned dose, ion chamber and diode measurements.

Indexed as

Film DosimetryHumansMagnetic FieldsMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasmsParticle AcceleratorsQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiation DosageRadiosurgeryGafchromic filmMRI-guided linacQuality assurance

Identifiers

PMID34174932
PMCPMC8236160

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.