Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35629296›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Influence of Specific Treatment Parameters on Nontarget and Out-of-Field Doses in a Phantom Model of Prostate SBRT with CyberKnife and TrueBeam.

Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska, Agnieszka Skrobala, Piotr Romanski, Adam Ryczkowski, Wiktoria Suchorska, Katarzyna Kulcenty, Igor Piotrowski, Dorota Borowicz, Kinga Graczyk, Natalia Matuszak and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Monte Carlo methods to assess biological response to radiation in peripheral organs and in critical organs near the target.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marta Kruszyna-MochalskaElectroradiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2216-3129
Agnieszka SkrobalaElectroradiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.
Piotr RomanskiMedical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.
Adam RyczkowskiElectroradiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.
Wiktoria SuchorskaElectroradiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4742-2465
Katarzyna KulcentyRadiobiology Laboratory, Medical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-8400-249X
Igor PiotrowskiElectroradiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4985-9321
Dorota BorowiczMedical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.
Kinga GraczykMedical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.
Natalia MatuszakElectroradiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.
Julian MalickiElectroradiology Department, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5558-5558
Poznan University of Medical Sciences · PLGreater Poland Cancer Center · PL

Funding

National Science Center 2015/19/B/NZ7/03811
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the influence of a key treatment plan and beam parameters on overall dose distribution and on doses in organs laying in further distance from the target during prostate SBRT. Multiple representative treatment plans (n = 12) for TrueBeam and CyberKnife were prepared and evaluated. Nontarget doses were measured with anionization chamber, in a quasi-humanoid phantom at four sites corresponding to the intestines, right lung, thyroid, and head. The following parameters were modified: radiotherapy technique, presence or not of a flattening filter, degree of modulation, and use or not of jaw tracking function for TrueBeam and beam orientation set-up, optimization techniques, and number of MUs for CyberKnife. After usual optimization doses in intestines (near the target) were 0.73% and 0.76%, in head (farthest from target) 0.05% and 0.19% for TrueBeam and CyberKnife, respectively. For TrueBeam the highest peripheral (head, thyroid, lung) doses occurred for the VMAT with the flattening filter while the lowest for 3DCRT. For CyberKnife the highest doses were for gantry with caudal direction beams blocked (gantry close to OARs) while the lowest was the low modulated VOLO optimization technique. The easiest method to reduce peripheral doses was to combine FFF with jaw tracking and reducing monitor units at TrueBeam and to avoid gantry position close to OARs together with reduction of monitor units at CyberKnife, respectively. The presented strategies allowed to significantly reduce out-of-field and nontarget doses during prostate radiotherapy delivered with TrueBeam and CyberKnife. A different approach was required to reduce peripheral doses because of the difference in dose delivery techniques: non-coplanar using CyberKnife and coplanar using TrueBeam, respectively.

Indexed as

dose reductionout-of-field dosesphantomprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID35629296
PMCPMC9146748
OpenAlexW4224324209

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.