Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37143943›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Dosimetric characterization of single- and dual-port temporary tissue expanders for postmastectomy radiotherapy using Monte Carlo methods.

Jose Ramos-Méndez, Catherine Park, Manju Sharma

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. An interface tool to parametrize treatment plans for the TrueBeam radiotherapy system into TOPAS parameter control files for Monte Carlo simulation.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2024
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jose Ramos-MéndezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Catherine ParkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Manju SharmaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

The TOPAS Tool for Particle Simulation, a Monte Carlo Simulation Tool for Physics, Biology and Clinical ResearchU24CA215123 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI FADDEGON, BRUCE · 2018 to 2022
$4.2M
NCI NIH HHS U24 CA215123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this work was two-fold: a) to assess two treatment planning strategies for accounting CT artifacts introduced by temporary tissue-expanders (TTEs); b) to evaluate the dosimetric impact of two commercially available and one novel TTE. Methods: The CT artifacts were managed using two strategies. 1) Identifying the metal in the RayStation treatment planning software (TPS) using image window-level adjustments, delineate a contour enclosing the artifact, and setting the density of the surrounding voxels to unity (RS1). 2) Registering a geometry template with dimensions and materials from the TTEs (RS2). Both strategies were compared for DermaSpan, AlloX2, and AlloX2-Pro TTEs using Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) in RayStation TPS, Monte Carlo simulations (MC) using TOPAS, and film measurements. Wax slab phantoms with metallic ports and breast phantoms with TTEs balloons were made and irradiated with a 6 MV AP beam and partial arc, respectively. Dose values along the AP direction calculated with CCC (RS2) and TOPAS (RS1 and RS2) were compared with film measurements. The impact in dose distributions was evaluated with RS2 by comparing TOPAS simulations with and without the metal port. Results: For the wax slab phantoms, the dose differences between RS1 and RS2 were 0.5% for DermaSpan and AlloX2 but 3% for AlloX2-Pro. From TOPAS simulations of RS2, the impact in dose distributions caused by the magnet attenuation was (6.4 ± 0.4) %, (4.9 ± 0.7)%, and (2.0 ± 0.9)% for DermaSpan, AlloX2, and AlloX2-Pro, respectively. With breast phantoms, maximum differences in DVH parameters between RS1 and RS2 were as follows. For AlloX2 at the posterior region: (2.1 ± 1.0)%, (1.9 ± 1.0)% and (1.4 ± 1.0)% for D1, D10, and average dose, respectively. For AlloX2-Pro at the anterior region (-1.0 ± 1.0)%, (-0.6 ± 1.0)% and (-0.6 ± 1.0)% for D1, D10 and average dose, respectively. The impact in D10 caused by the magnet was at most (5.5 ± 1.0)% and (-0.8 ± 1.0)% for AlloX2 and AlloX2-Pro, respectively. Conclusion: Two strategies for accounting for CT artifacts from three breast TTEs were assessed using CCC, MC, and film measurements. This study showed that the highest differences with respect to measurements occurred with RS1 and can be mitigated if a template with the actual port geometry and materials is used.

Indexed as

breast cancercollapsed cone convolution algorithmhigh-density metal artifactsMonte Carlo-TOPASPMRTradiation effectstemporary-tissue-expanders

Identifiers

PMID37143943
PMCPMC10151677
OpenAlexW4366290938

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.