ArticleJournal of medical physics
Evaluation of Surface Dose and Commissioning of Compensator-Based Total Body Irradiation.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Phantom Study on Feasibility of Manual Field-in-Field Clinical Implementation for Total Body Irradiation and Comparison of Midplane Dose with Different Bilateral TBI Techniques.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Validation of Treatment Planning Systems based on Dose Calculation Accuracy for Extended SSD Total Body Irradiation with and without Beam Spoiler.Journal of medical physicsArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the current study is to commission compensator-based total body irradiation (TBI) and to compare surface dose using percentage depth dose (PDD) while varying the distance between beam spoiler and phantom surface. Materials and Methods: TBI commissioning was performed on Elekta Synergy® Platform linear accelerator for bilateral extended source to surface distance treatment technique. The PDD was measured by varying the distance (10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, and 40 cm) between the beam spoiler and the phantom surface. Beam profile and half-value layer (HVL) measurement were carried out using the FC65 ion-chamber. Quality assurance (QA) was performed using an in-house rice-flour phantom (RFP). Results: An increase in Dmax and surface dose was observed when beam spoiler was moved away from the phantom surface. The flatness and symmetry of the beam profile were calculated. The HVL of Perspex and aluminum is 17 cm and 8 cm, respectively. The calculated dose of each region was compared to the measured dose on the RFP with IVD, and the findings showed that the variation was <4.7% for both Perspex and Aluminum compensators. Conclusion: The commissioning of the compensator-based TBI technique was performed and its QA measurements were carried out. The Mayneord factor corrected PDD and measured PDD values were compared. The results are well within the clinical tolerance limit. This study concludes that 10 cm -20 cm is the optimal distance from the beam spoiler to phantom surface to achieve prescribed dose to the skin.
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.