ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024
Gafchromic EBT3 film provides equivalent dosimetric performance to EBT-XD film for stereotactic radiosurgery dosimetry.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel audit methodology to improve detection of planning and delivery errors in passive motion management.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Residual range-based quenching correction for Gafchromic EBT3 film in proton therapy patient-specific QA.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Comprehensive end-to-end dosimetry audit for stereotactic body radiotherapy in spine, lung, and soft tissue.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Design and validation of a novel dosimetry phantom for motion management audits.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- An international film dosimetry intercomparison to establish a multi-center audit framework.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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accurate assessment of film results is highly dependent on the methodology and techniques used to process film. This study aims to compare the performance of EBT3 and EBT-XD film for SRS dosimetry using two different film processing methods. Experiments were performed in a solid water slab and an anthropomorphic head phantom. For each experiment, the net optical density of the film was calculated using two different methods; taking the background (initial) optical density from 1) an unirradiated film from the same film lot as the irradiated film (stock to stock (S-S) method), and 2) a scan of the same piece of film taken prior to irradiation (film to film (F-F) method). EBT3 and EBT-XD performed similarly across the suite of experiments when using the green channel only or with triple channel RGB dosimetry. The dosimetric performance of EBT-XD was improved across all colour channels by using an F-F method, particularly for the blue channel. In contrast, EBT3 performed similarly well regardless of the net optical density method used. Across 21 SRS treatment plans, the average per-pixel agreement between EBT3 and EBT-XD films, normalised to the 20 Gy prescription dose, was within 2% and 4% for the non-target (2-10 Gy) and target (> 10 Gy) regions, respectively, when using the F-F method. At doses relevant to SRS, EBT3 provides comparable dosimetric performance to EBT-XD. In addition, an S-S dosimetry method is suitable for EBT3 while an F-F method should be adopted if using EBT-XD.
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.