ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022
Dosimetric effects of embolization material artefacts in arteriovenous malformations stereotactic radiosurgery on treatment planning calculation.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practical considerations for handling implants in proton therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- The impact of intravenous iodinated contrast agents on radiotherapy dose calculation and radiobiological effect predictions in central lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) is a specialized radiotherapy treatment technique for Arteriovenous Malformations (AVM) in which Computed Tomography (CT) images are used for dose calculations. The purpose of this study was to investigate CT image distortions caused by embolic agents and quantify the influence of these distortions on dose calculations. Methods: Eight AVM patients administered embolic agents prior to SRS were included. Original plans were compared to new recalculated plans using two sets of images. The first set was created by masking the embolic material and artefacts, the second was the diagnostic CT images. In addition, treatment plans were created for an anthropomorphic phantom with water inserts, then with known volumes of embolic materials to study the dosimetric effect of each material. Results: Relative to patients' original plans, maximum Monitor Unit (MU) difference was -4.4% with whole brain masking, -1.3% with artefact masking, -4.1% with embolic masking, and -4.5% with artefact-free diagnostic images. Calculated dose differences were within ± 3.5% for all plans. In phantom, Gamma pass rate was 96% for both embolic agents with conformal fields and 99.9% with dynamic arcs. Dose and MU differences in phantom plans were negligible. Conclusion: Relative dose differences between the original plans and the corrected ones were not clinically remarkable. We recommend evaluating the effect of embolic materials on individual patients' plans. The whole brain corrected planning CT images or diagnostic CT images could be utilized to calculate the magnitude of dose reduction caused by embolic materials and correct it if necessary.
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.