Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35396569›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Accuracy of the doses computed by the Eclipse treatment planning system near and inside metal elements.

Bartosz Pawałowski, Adam Ryczkowski, Rafał Panek, Urszula Sobocka-Kurdyk, Kinga Graczyk, Tomasz Piotrowski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The accuracy of Eclipse AXB and AAA dose algorithms with dental amalgam.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Dose difference between anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) caused by target's air content for volumetric modulated arc therapy of head and neck cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bartosz PawałowskiDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866, Poznan, Poland.
Adam RyczkowskiDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866, Poznan, Poland.
Rafał PanekMedical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Urszula Sobocka-KurdykDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866, Poznan, Poland.
Kinga GraczykDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866, Poznan, Poland.
Tomasz PiotrowskiDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Garbary 15, 61-866, Poznan, Poland. tomasz.piotrowski@me.com.
Greater Poland Cancer Center · PLPoznan University of Medical Sciences · PLNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metal artefacts degrade clinical image quality which decreases the confidence of using computed tomography (CT) for the delineation of key structures for treatment planning and leads to dose errors in affected areas. In this work, we investigated accuracy of doses computed by the Eclipse treatment planning system near and inside metallic elements for two different computation algorithms. An impact of CT metal artefact reduction methods on the resulting calculated doses has also been assessed. A water phantom including Gafchromic film and metal inserts was irradiated (max dose 5 Gy) using a 6 MV photon beam. Three materials were tested: titanium, alloy 600, and tungsten. The phantom CT images were obtained with the pseudo-monoenergetic reconstruction (PMR) and the iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR). Image sets were used for dose calculation using an Eclipse treatment planning station (TPS). Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to predict the true dose distribution in the phantom allowing for comparison with doses measured by film and calculated by TPS. Measured and simulated percentage depth doses (PDDs) were not statistically different (p > 0.618). Regional differences were observed at edges of metallic objects (max 8% difference). However, PDDs simulated with and without film were statistically different (p < 0.002). PDDs calculated by the Acuros XB algorithm based on the dose-to-medium approach best matched the MC reference regardless of the CT reconstruction methods and inserts used (p > 0.078). PDDs obtained using other algorithms significantly differ from the MC values (p < 0.011). The Acuros XB algorithm with a dose-to-medium approach provides reliable dose calculation in all metal regions when using the Varian system. The inability of the AAA algorithm to model backscatter dose significantly limits its clinical application in the presence of metal. No significant impact on the dose calculation was found for a range of metal artefact reduction strategies.

Indexed as

ArtifactsRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsMetalsMonte Carlo MethodPhantoms, ImagingRadiotherapy DosageMetals

Identifiers

PMID35396569
PMCPMC8993896
OpenAlexW4223646551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.