ArticleInternational journal of health sciences
Article in International journal of health sciences. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to check the
methodsThe target positions for conformal radiotherapy were simulated by joining two identical water phantoms (approximating the patient dimensions), and a treatment plan to treat the two targets simultaneously with a common isocenter was planned. Calculations were made with a dose prescription of 300cGy to each lesion. The plan was executed on a medical linear accelerator and verified for point doses for individual targets with two ion chambers. Two-dimensional dose verification for fluence was also performed using an array detector of ion chambers (I'mRTMatriXX) to further validate the technique.
resultsThe minimum, mean and maximum dose in centiGray(cGy) covered by both Ionization Chamber-1 (IC-1) and Ionization Chamber-2 (IC-2) was 295, 303 and 307 as per dose statistics from the treatment plan. The global dose max obtained from the plan was 307 cGy. Measured point doses to both the targets were within ±2%. Dose Difference and Distance to agreement (3%, 3 mm criteria) criteria also passed for 2Dfluence verification.
conclusionsRadiotherapy of two or multiple targets using monoisocentric technique can appreciably reduce the scatter dose to the normal surrounding tissue around the target/s and also the required setup and treatment time is reduced significantly. Therefore, the technique can be efficiently used to save time without compromising the radio therapeutic ratio and quality treatment, for both palliative and curative intent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35024030PMC8721211W4206871660What 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.