Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35717637›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2022

A multi-institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS-483.

Wolfgang Lechner, Rodolfo Alfonso, Mehenna Arib, M Saiful Huq, Anas Ismail, Rajesh Kinhikar, José M Lárraga-Gutiérrez, Karthick Raj Mani, Nkosingiphile Maphumulo, Otto A Sauer and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Wolfgang LechnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Physics, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9211-7510
Rodolfo AlfonsoDepartment of Nuclear Engineering, Higher Institute of Technology and Applied Sciences, University of Havana, Havana, Cuba.
Mehenna AribKing Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
M Saiful HuqDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Anas IsmailProtection and Safety Department, Atomic Energy Commission of Syria, Damascus, Syria.
Rajesh KinhikarDepartment of Medical Physics, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India 400012 & Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
José M Lárraga-GutiérrezLaboratorio de Física-Médica, Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía, Tlalpan, CDMX, México.
Karthick Raj ManiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, United Hospital Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Nkosingiphile MaphumuloRadiation Dosimetry Section, National Metrology Institute of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
Otto A SauerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Shaima ShoeirChildren's Cancer Hospital Egypt, Cairo, Egypt.
Sivalee SuriyapeeDivision of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Karen ChristakiInternational Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Testing of Code of Practice on Small Field Dosimetry-E24021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS-483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs). MATERIALS AND

methodsTwelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with various detectors. Various linac models using the beam qualities 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter and without flattening filter were utilized to generate square fields down to a nominal field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The detectors were positioned at 10 cm depth in water. Depending on the local situation, the source-to-surface distance was either set to 90 cm or 100 cm. The SFOFs were normalized to the output of the 10 cm × 10 cm field. The spread of SFOFs measured with different detectors was investigated for each individual linac beam quality and field size. Additionally, linac-type specific SFOF curves were determined for each beam quality and the SFOFs determined using individual detectors were compared to these curves. Example uncertainty budgets were established for a solid state detector and a micro ionization chamber.

resultsThe spread of SFOFs for each linac and field was below 5% for all field sizes. With the exception of one linac-type, the SFOFs of all investigated detectors agreed within 10% with the respective linac-type SFOF curve, indicating a potential inter-detector and inter-linac variability.

conclusionQuality assurance on the SFOF measurements can be done by investigation of the spread of SFOFs measured with multiple detectors and by comparison to linac-type specific SFOFs. A follow-up of a measurement session should be conducted if the spread of SFOFs is larger than 5%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 2 cm × 2 cm, respectively. Additionally, deviations of measured SFOFs to the linac-type-curves of more than 7%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 1 cm × 1 cm, respectively, should be followed up.

Indexed as

Particle AcceleratorsRadiometryPhotonsUncertaintyWaterWatersmall field dosimetrysmall field output factorsTRS-483

Identifiers

PMID35717637
PMCPMC9541513

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.