ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Nontoxic electron collimators.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric characterization of scatter foil-enhanced contact collimation for small superficial electron beam therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Monte Carlo modeling of a commercial machine and experimental setup for FLASH-minibeam irradiations with electrons.Medical physics · 2025Article
- A clinical solution for non-toxic 3D-printed photon blocks in external beam radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Shaping success: clinical implementation of a 3D-printed electron cutout program in external beam radiation therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Transitioning to Environmentally Sustainable, Climate-Smart Radiation Oncology Care.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022Article
- Nontoxic electron collimators.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goal of this work was to develop and test nontoxic electron collimation technologies for clinical use.
methodsTwo novel technologies were investigated: tungsten-silicone composite and 3D printed electron cutouts. Transmission, dose uniformity, and profiles were measured for the tungsten-silicone. Surface dose, relative dose output, and field size were measured for the 3D printed cutouts and compared with the standard cerrobend cutouts in current clinical use. Quality assurance tests including mass measurements, Megavoltage (MV) imaging, and drop testing were developed for the 3D printed cutouts as a guide to safe clinical implementation.
resultsDose profiles of the flexible tungsten-silicone skin shields had an 80-20 penumbra values of 2-3 mm compared to 7-8 mm for cerrobend. In MV transmission image measurements of the tungsten-silicone, 80% of the pixels had a transmission value within 2% of the mean. An ∼90% reduction in electron intensity was measured for 6 MeV and a 6.4 mm thickness of tungsten-silicone and 12.7 mm thickness for 16 MeV. The maximum difference in 3D printed cutout versus cerrobend output, surface dose, and full width at half-maximum (FWHM) was 1.7%, 1.2%, and 1.5%, respectively, for the 10 cm × 10 cm cutouts.
conclusionsBoth flexible tungsten-silicone and 3D printed cutouts were found to be feasible for clinical use. The flexible tungsten-silicone was of adequate density, flexibility, and uniformity to serve as skin shields for electron therapy. The 3D printed cutouts were dosimetrically equivalent to standard cerrobend cutouts and were robust enough for handling in the clinical environment.
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.