ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Treatment planning with a 2.5 MV photon beam for radiation therapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of immobilization mask and beam energy on dose coverage to small joints in treating osteoarthritis with low-dose radiation therapy.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Radiosensitization of Rare-Earth Nanoparticles Based on the Consistency Between Its K-Edge and the X-Ray Bremsstrahlung Peak.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Treatment planning with a 2.5 MV photon beam for radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Historical Progress of Stereotactic Radiation Surgery.Journal of medical physicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe shallow depth of maximum dose and higher dose fall-off gradient of a 2.5 MV beam along the central axis that is available for imaging on linear accelerators is investigated for treatment of shallow tumors and sparing the organs at risk (OARs) beyond it. In addition, the 2.5 MV beam has an energy bridging the gap between kilo-voltage (kV) and mega-voltage (MV) beams for applications of dose enhancement with high atomic number (Z) nanoparticles.
methodsWe have commissioned and utilized a MATLAB-based, open-source treatment planning software (TPS), matRad, for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose calculations. Treatment plans for prostate, liver, and head and neck (H&N), nasal cavity, two orbit cases, and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) were performed and compared to a conventional 6 MV beam. Additional Monte Carlo calculations were also used for benchmarking the central axis dose.
resultsBoth beams had similar planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage for all cases. However, the 2.5 MV beam deposited 6%-19% less integral doses to the nasal cavity, orbit, and GBM cases than 6 MV photons. The mean dose to the heart in the liver plan was 10.5% lower for 2.5 MV beam. The difference between the doses to OARs of H&N for two beams was under 3%. Brain mean dose, brainstem, and optic chiasm max doses were, respectively, 7.5%-14.9%, 2.2%-8.1%, and 2.5%-19.0% lower for the 2.5 MV beam in the nasal cavity, orbit, and GBM plans.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the 2.5 MV beam can produce clinically relevant treatment plans, motivating future efforts for design of single-energy LINACs. Such a machine will be capable of producing beams at this energy beneficial for low- and middle-income countries, and investigations on dose enhancement from high-Z nanoparticles.
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.