Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38669190›Full record

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.

Steven M Herchko, Michael S Rutenberg, Chris J Beltran, Sridhar Yaddanapudi

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Steven M HerchkoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6435-5650
Michael S RutenbergDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Chris J BeltranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Sridhar YaddanapudiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9796-8576
Jacksonville College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ElectronsOrgans at RiskPrinting, Three-DimensionalRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSkinHumansNeoplasmsParticle AcceleratorsPhantoms, Imaging3D printingelectron beam therapyexternal beam therapypatient‐specific devices

Identifiers

PMID38669190
PMCPMC11087155
OpenAlexW4395663747

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.