ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Impact of 1.5 T Magnetic Field on Treatment Plan Quality in MR-Guided Radiotherapy: Typical Phantom Test Cases.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to investigate the influence of the magnetic field on treatment plan quality using typical phantom test cases, which encompass a circle target test case, AAPM TG119 test cases (prostate, head-and-neck, C-shape, multi-target test cases), and a lung test case. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor the typical phantom test cases, two plans were formulated. The first plan underwent optimization in the presence of a 1.5 Tesla magnetic field (1.5 T plan). The second plan was re-optimized without a magnetic field (0 T plan), utilizing the same optimization conditions as the first plan. The two plans were compared based on various parameters, including con-formity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), fit index (FI) and dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV), dose delivered to organs at risk (OARs) and normal tissue (NT), monitor unit (MU). A plan-quality metric (PQM) scoring procedure was employed. For the 1.5 T plans, dose verifications were performed using an MR-compatible ArcCHECK phantom.
resultsA smaller dose influence of the magnetic field was found for the circle target, prostate, head-and-neck, and C-shape test cases, compared with the multi-target and lung test cases. In the multi-target test case, the significant dose influence was on the inferior PTV, followed by the superior PTV. There was a relatively large dose influence on the PTV and OARs for lung test case. No statistically significant differences in PQM and MUs were observed. For the 1.5 T plans, gamma passing rates were all higher than 95% with criteria of 2 mm/3% and 2 mm/2%.
conclusionThe presence of a 1.5 T magnetic field had a relatively large impact on dose parameters in the multi-target and lung test cases compared with other test cases. However, there were no significant influences on the plan-quality metric, MU and dose accuracy for all test cases.
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.