ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
On the importance of quality assurance (QA) for COMS eye plaque Silastic inserts: A guide to measurement methods, typical variations, and an example of how QA intercepted a manufacturing aberration.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- On the importance of quality assurance (QA) for COMS eye plaque Silastic inserts: A guide to measurement methods, typical variations, and an example of how QA intercepted a manufacturing aberration.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEye plaques are widely used for ocular melanoma and provide an effective alternative to enucleation with adequate tumor control. A COMS plaque utilizes a Silastic insert for precise positioning of the radioactive seeds with respect to the scleral surface of the eye; however, due to manufacturing variability, the insert may unintentionally increase or decrease the distance between the sources and tumor. The purpose of this work is to provide guidance in measuring and identifying outliers in Silastic inserts. The importance of regular quality assurance (QA) is illustrated in an experience where a systematic problem was detected and the manufacturer's 22-mm mold was corrected.
methodsA detailed description of the molds and manufacturing process used to produce Silastic inserts is provided, including photographs of the process steps. The variability in Silastic insert production was evaluated by measuring the thickness of 124 Silastic inserts. An estimate of how the observed Silastic thickness discrepancies impact the dose to the tumor and critical eye structures was performed using homogeneous dose calculations. A standard QA protocol was developed to guide the clinical user.
resultsThickness of the measured Silastic inserts ranged from 1.22 to 2.67 mm, demonstrating variation from the 2.25 mm standard. Six of the 22-mm inserts were outliers (Δthickness >3 standard deviations) and were excluded from the statistics. The outliers were investigated with the help of the manufacturer, who discovered that a systematic error was accidentally introduced into the 22-mm mold.
conclusionsDue to manufacturing errors or variability, the Silastic inserts used in COMS eye plaques may be thicker or thinner than the design standard. Such variations may impact tumor control or increase the risk of normal tissue side effects. A standardized QA program is recommended to detect variations and communicate unusual findings to the manufacturer.
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.