ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
A customizable aluminum compensator system for total body irradiation.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning approach to estimation of in vivo measured dose and treatment planning for total body irradiation.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- A customizable aluminum compensator system for total body irradiation.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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop a simplified aluminum compensator system for total body irradiation (TBI) that is easy to assemble and modify in a short period of time for customized patient treatments.
methodsThe compensator is composed of a combination of 0.3 cm thick aluminum bars, two aluminum T-tracks, spacers, and metal bolts. The system is mounted onto a plexiglass block tray. The design consists of 11 fixed sectors spanning from the patient's head to feet. The outermost sectors utilize 7.6 cm wide aluminum bars, while the remaining sectors use 2.5 cm wide aluminum bars. There is a magnification factor of 5 from the compensator to the patient treatment plane. Each bar of aluminum is interconnected at each adjacent sector with a tongue and groove arrangement and fastened to the T-track using a metal washer, bolt, and nut. Inter-bar leakage of the compensator was tested using a water tank and diode. End-to-end measurements were performed with an ion chamber in a solid water phantom and also with a RANDO phantom using internal and external optically stimulated luminescent detectors (OSLDs). In-vivo patient measurements from the first 20 patients treated with this aluminum compensator were compared to those from 20 patients treated with our previously used lead compensator system.
resultsThe compensator assembly time was reduced to 20-30 min compared to the 2-4 h it would take with the previous lead design. All end-to-end measurements were within 10% of that expected. The median absolute in-vivo error for the aluminum compensator was 3.7%, with 93.8% of measurements being within 10% of that expected. The median error for the lead compensator system was 5.3%, with 85.1% being within 10% of that expected.
conclusionThis design has become the standard compensator at our clinic. It allows for quick assembly and customization along with meeting the Task Group 29 recommendations for dose uniformity.
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.