ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
Comparison Flattening Filter and Flattening Filter-Free Techniques in Small-Fields Dosimetry with Various Types of Detectors.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the detector size effect on small-field dosimetry and compare the performance of 6MV WFF/FFF techniques.
methodsWe investigated the detector size effect on small-field dosimetry and compared the performance of 6MV WFF/FFF techniques. PDD, profile curves, and absorbed dose were measured in water under reference conditions with 6MV (WFF/FFF) techniques. We employed Farmer FC65-P, CC13, CC01, and IBA Razor diode, with Versa Lineac. Subsequently, we replicated this assessment for small-fields under 5cmx5cm dimensions.
resultsFor both 6MV WFF/FFF, significant dose differences (Dmax=1.47cm), were ±4.55%, ±6.7, ±12.75% and ±33.3% for 4cmx4cm, 3cmx3cm, 2cmx2cm, and 1cmx1cm, respectively. The average difference relative to D10 was observed to be ±4.66%, ±5.73%, ±6.58%, and ±8.75% for the previous field sizes. Differences between WFF/FFF are neglected values at all field sizes>2.3%, also, the output of the largest detector FC65-P is lower at 55% in the smallest field size. Variation in the profile doesn't exceed a difference of >5% in flatness between WFF/FFF at depth10cm, across all fields, while symmetry is >1%, but radiation output is considerably lower at 55% for FC65-P chamber in 2cmx2cm, 1cmx1cm compared to the CC01 chamber and Razor diode. Significant differences in 1cmx1cm, where FC65-P chamber exhibits around 49% difference compared to Razor diode with 6MV (WFF/FFF). Conclusions: Significant differences were observed in doses with various detectors. Detector-size influences the dose. WFF/FFF techniques show no major differences in small-fields dosimetry. Utilize some situations the advantage of FFF boasting a higher dose rate, consequently reducing treatment time to half.
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.