ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Modified Geometry of
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantifying the effect of eccentric ruthenium plaque placement on tumor volume dose.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Ru/Rh asymmetric plaques for ophthalmic brachytherapy have special geometric designs with a cutout intended to prevent irradiation of critical ocular structures proximal to the tumor. In this work, we present new geometric models for PENELOPE+PenEasy Monte Carlo simulations of these applicators, differing from the vendor-reported geometry, that better match their real geometry to assess their dosimetric impact. Simulation results were benchmarked to experimental dosimetric data from radiochromic film measurements, data provided by the manufacturer in the calibration certificates, and other experimental results published in the literature, obtaining, in all cases, better agreement with the modified geometries. The clinical impact of the new geometric models was evaluated by simulating real clinical cases using patient-specific eye models. The cases calculated using the modified geometries presented higher doses to the critical structures proximal to the cutout region. The modified geometric models presented in this work provide a more accurate representation of the asymmetric plaques, greatly improving the agreement between Monte Carlo calculations and experimental measurements. Lack of consideration of accurate geometric models has been shown to be translated into notable increases in dose to organs at risk in clinical cases.
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.