ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
A comprehensive pre-clinical treatment quality assurance program using unique spot patterns for proton pencil beam scanning FLASH radiotherapy.
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 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.
- Review
- Three-dimensional proton FLASH dose rate measurement at high spatiotemporal resolution using a novel multi-layer strip ionization chamber (MLSIC) device.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Design and characterization of a novel scintillator array for UHDR PBS proton therapy surface dosimetry.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Supersonic gas curtain based ionization beam profile monitor for FLASH proton beam therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive pre-clinical treatment quality assurance program using unique spot patterns for proton pencil beam scanning FLASH radiotherapy.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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality assurance (QA) for ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation is a crucial aspect in the emerging field of FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT). This innovative treatment approach delivers radiation at UHDR, demanding careful adoption of QA protocols and procedures. A comprehensive understanding of beam properties and dosimetry consistency is vital to ensure the safe and effective delivery of FLASH-RT. PURPOSE: To develop a comprehensive pre-treatment QA program for cyclotron-based proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) FLASH-RT. Establish appropriate tolerances for QA items based on this study's outcomes and TG-224 recommendations.
methodsA 250 MeV proton spot pattern was designed and implemented using UHDR with a 215nA nozzle beam current. The QA pattern that covers a central uniform field area, various spot spacings, spot delivery modes and scanning directions, and enabling the assessment of absolute, relative and temporal dosimetry QA parameters. A strip ionization chamber array (SICA) and an Advanced Markus chamber were utilized in conjunction with a 2 cm polyethylene slab and a range (R
resultsThe relative dosimetries were compliant with TG-224. The variations of temporal dosimetry for scanning speed, spot dwell time, and spot transition time were within ± 1 mm/ms, ± 0.2 ms, and ± 0.2 ms, respectively. While the beam-to-beam absolute output on the same day reached up to 2.14%, the day-to-day variation was as high as 9.69%. High correlation between the absolute dose and dose rate fluctuations were identified. The dose rate of the central 5 × 5 cm
conclusionsA comprehensive QA program for FLASH-RT was developed and effectively assesses the performance of a UHDR delivery system. Establishing tolerances to unify standards and offering direction for future advancements in the evolving FLASH-RT field.
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.