ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Dosimetric impact of deformable image registration using radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters with a physical geometric phantom.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dosimetric impact of deformable image registration using radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeters with a physical geometric phantom.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo study the dosimetry impact of deformable image registration (DIR) using radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeter (RPLD) and custom developed phantom with various inserts.
methodsThe phantom was developed to facilitate simultaneous evaluation of geometric and dosimetric accuracy of DIR. Four computed tomography (CT) images of the phantom were acquired with four different configurations. Four volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were computed for different phantom. Two different patterns were applied to combination of four phantom configurations. RPLD dose measurement was combined between corresponding two phantom configurations. DIR-based dose accumulation was calculated between corresponding two CT images with two commercial DIR software and various DIR parameter settings, and an open source software. Accumulated dose calculated using DIR was then compared with measured dose using RPLD.
resultsThe mean ± standard deviation (SD) of dose difference was 2.71 ± 0.23% (range, 2.22%-3.01%) for tumor-proxy and 3.74 ± 0.79% (range, 1.56%-4.83%) for rectum-proxy. The mean ± SD of target registration error (TRE) was 1.66 ± 1.36 mm (range, 0.03-4.43 mm) for tumor-proxy and 6.87 ± 5.49 mm (range, 0.54-17.47 mm) for rectum-proxy. These results suggested that DIR accuracy had wide range among DIR parameter setting.
conclusionsThe dose difference observed in our study was 3% for tumor-proxy and within 5% for rectum-proxy. The custom developed physical phantom with inserts showed potential for accurate evaluation of DIR-based dose accumulation. The prospect of simultaneous evaluation of geometric and dosimetric DIR accuracy in a single phantom may be useful for validation of DIR for clinical use.
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.