ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Technical note: A comparison of in-house 3D-printed and commercially available patient-specific skin collimators for use with electron beam therapy.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric characterization of scatter foil-enhanced contact collimation for small superficial electron beam therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A Review of 3D-Printed Medical Devices for Cancer Radiation Therapy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Technical note: A comparison of in-house 3D-printed and commercially available patient-specific skin collimators for use with electron beam therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSkin collimation is a useful tool in electron beam therapy (EBT) to decrease the penumbra at the field edge and minimize dose to nearby superficial organs at risk (OARs), but manually fabricating these collimation devices in the clinic to conform to the patient's anatomy can be a difficult and time intensive process. This work compares two types of patient-specific skin collimation (in-house 3D printed and vendor-provided machined brass) using clinically relevant metrics.
methodsAttenuation measurements were performed to determine the thickness of each material needed to adequately shield both 6 and 9 MeV electron beams. Relative and absolute dose planes at various depths were measured using radiochromic film to compare the surface dose, flatness, and penumbra of the different skin collimation materials.
resultsClinically acceptable thicknesses of each material were determined for both 6 and 9 MeV electron beams. Field width, flatness, and penumbra results between the two systems were very similar and significantly improved compared to measurements performed with no surface collimation.
conclusionBoth skin collimation methods investigated in this work generate sharp penumbras at the field edge and can minimize dose to superficial OARs compared to treatment fields with no surface collimation. The benefits of skin collimation are greatest for lower energy electron beams, and the benefits decrease as the measurement depth increases. Using bolus with skin collimation is recommended to avoid surface dose enhancement seen with collimators placed on the skin surface. Ultimately, the appropriate choice of material will depend on the desire to create these devices in-house or outsource the fabrication to a vendor.
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.