Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36593751›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

Evaluation of treatment planning system accuracy in estimating the stopping-power ratio of immobilization devices for proton therapy.

Kai Jiang, Michael MacFarlane, Sina Mossahebi, Mark J Zakhary

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. 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. Insights from initial experience for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with proton therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Kai JiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Michael MacFarlaneDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Sina MossahebiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mark J ZakharyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess treatment planning system (TPS) accuracy in estimating the stopping-power ratio (SPR) of immobilization devices commonly used in proton therapy and to evaluate the dosimetric effect of SPR estimation error for a set of clinical treatment plans.

methodsComputed tomography scans of selected clinical immobilization devices were acquired. Then, the water-equivalent thickness (WET) and SPR values of these devices based on the scans were estimated in a commercial TPS. The reference SPR of each device was measured using a multilayer ion chamber (MLIC), and the differences between measured and TPS-estimated SPRs were calculated. These findings were utilized to calculate corrected dose distributions of 15 clinical proton plans for three treatment sites: extremity, abdomen, and head-and-neck. The original and corrected dose distributions were compared using a set of target and organs-at-risk (OARs) dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters.

resultsOn average, the TPS-estimated SPR was 19.5% lower (range, -35.1% to 0.2%) than the MLIC-measured SPR. Due to the relatively low density of most immobilization devices used, the WET error was typically <1 mm, but up to 2.2 mm in certain devices. Overriding the SPR of the immobilization devices to the measured values did not result in significant changes in the DVH metrics of targets and most OARs. However, some critical OARs showed noticeable changes of up to 6.7% in maximum dose.

conclusionsThe TPS tends to underestimate the SPR of selected proton immobilization devices by an average of about 20%, but this does not induce major WET errors because of the low density of the devices. The dosimetric effect of this SPR error was negligible for most treatment sites, although the maximum dose of a few OARs exhibited noticeable variations.

Indexed as

Proton TherapyHumansProtonsRadiometryRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedProtonsimmobilizationproton radiotherapystopping power ratiotreatment planning systemwater equivalent thickness

Identifiers

PMID36593751
PMCPMC9924110

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.