Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38279520›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

Intraoperative radiation therapy with 50 kV x-rays: A multi-institutional review.

Anil Sethi, Sebastien Gros, Patrik Brodin, Beth Ghavidel, Xuedong Chai, Marija Popovic, Wolfgang Axel Tomé, Samuel Trichter, Xiaofeng Yang, Hualin Zhang and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

11 authors.

Anil SethiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7433-659X
Sebastien GrosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois, USA.
Patrik BrodinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Beth GhavidelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Xuedong ChaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Marija PopovicDepartment of Medical Physics, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Wolfgang Axel ToméDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1586-8091
Samuel TrichterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Xiaofeng YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9023-5855
Hualin ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3972-0107
Valery UhlDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Summit Medical Center, Emeryville, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This report covers clinical implementation of a low kV intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) program with the INTRABEAM® System (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany). Based on collective user experience from eight institutions, we discuss best methods of INTRABEAM quality assurance (QA) tests, commissioning measurements, clinical workflow, treatment planning, and potential avenues for research. The guide provides pertinent background information and clinical justification for IORT. It describes the INTRABEAM system and commissioning measurements along with a TG100 risk management analysis to ensure safety and accuracy of the IORT program. Following safety checks, dosimetry measurements are performed for verification of field flatness and symmetry, x-ray output, and depth dose. Also discussed are dose linearity checks, beam isotropy, ion chamber measurements, calibration protocols, and in-vivo dosimetry with optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters OSLDs, and radiochromic film. Emphasis is placed on the importance of routine QA procedures (daily, monthly, and annual) performed at regular intervals for a successful IORT program. For safe and accurate dose delivery, tests of important components of IORT clinical workflow are emphasized, such as, dose prescription, pre-treatment QA, treatment setup, safety checks, radiation surveys, and independent checks of delivered dose. Challenges associated with in-vivo dose measurements are discussed, along with special treatment procedures and shielding requirements. The importance of treatment planning in IORT is reviewed with reference to a Monte Carlo-based commercial treatment planning system highlighting its main features and limitations. The report concludes with suggested topics for research including CT-based image-guided treatment planning and improved prescription dose accuracy. We hope that this multi-institutional report will serve as a guidance document on the clinical implementation and use of INTRABEAM IORT.

Indexed as

In Vivo DosimetryRadiometryHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicRadiographyRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedX-Raysclinical implementationIORTkilo-voltage therapy

Identifiers

PMID38279520
PMCPMC10929998

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.