ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021
Doses delivered by portal imaging quality assurance in routine practice of adjuvant breast radiotherapy worth to by monitored and compensated in some cases.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImaging, in radiotherapy, has become a routine tool for repositioning of the target volume at each session. The repositioning precision, currently infracentimetric, evolves along with the irradiation techniques. This retrospective study aimed to identify practices and doses resulting from the use of high energy planar imaging (portal imaging) in daily practice.
methodsA retrospective survey of portal images (PIs) was carried out over 10 years for 2,403 patients and for three linacs (1 Elekta SLi, 2 Varian Clinac) for postoperative mammary irradiations. Images were taken using a standardized number of monitor units (MU) for all patients. Due to the variable sensitivities of the detectors and the possibility of adjustment of the detector-patient distance, the number of MU were 3; 2 and 1 respectively, for Elekta SLi
resultsThe delivered doses differ significantly between the three linacs. The mean representative dose values by complete treatment were 0.695; 0.241 and 0.216 Gy, respectively, for SLi, Clinac 600 and Clinac 2100. However, 15 patients were exposed to a dose >2 Gy with a maximum dose of 5.05 Gy. The simulated doses were very similar to the representative doses.
conclusionsA significant dose delivery was highlighted by this study. These representative doses are presently communicated weekly to the radiation oncologist for the radiation protection of their patients. Moreover, they should be taken into account in a possible study of long-term stochastic risks.
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.