ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Validation of Acuros for total body irradiation at extended distance.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Total body irradiation (TBI) combining volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for thorax at standard source axis distance (SAD) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at extended SAD.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Validation of Acuros for total body irradiation at extended distance.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStandardized and accurately reported doses are essential in conventional total body irradiation (TBI), especially lung doses. This study evaluates the accuracy of the Acuros algorithm in predicting doses for extended-distance TBI.
methodsMeasurements and calculations were done with both 6 and 18 MV. Tissue Maximum Ratio (TMR), output and off axis ratios (OAR) were measured at 200 and 500 cm source to detector distance and compared to Acuros calculated values. Two end-to-end tests were carried out, one with an in-house phantom (solid water and Styrofoam) with inserted ion chambers and the other was with the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) TBI anthropomorphic phantom equipped with TLDs. The end-to-end test was done for 6 and 18 MV both with and without lung blocks. The source to midplane distance for both phantoms were at 518 and 508 cm respectively. Lung blocks were placed at the phantom surface and a beam spoiler was positioned 30 cm from the surface of the phantoms as per our clinical set up.
resultsThe agreement between measured and calculated TMR, output and off axis ratios for both 6 and 18 MV were within 2%. Ion chamber measurements in both the Styrofoam and solid water for both energies carried out with and without lung blocks were within 2% of calculated values. TLD measured doses for both 6 and 18 MV in the IROC phantom were within 5% of calculated doses which is within the uncertainty of the TLD measurement.
conclusionsThe results indicate that the clinical beam model for Acuros 16.1 commissioned at standard clinical distances is capable of calculating doses accurately at extended distances up to 500 cm.
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.