ArticleJournal of medical physics
Evaluation of the Treatment Planning and Delivery for Hip Implant Cases on Tomotherapy.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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.
- Nominal material density may not reflect TPS-relevant density for 3D-printed surgical reconstruction implants: An educational case study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Performance of a Vendor System for Systematic Offline Adaptive Breast Helical Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The metal present in the implant creates artifacts during the treatment simulation, which impacts the treatment planning and delivery of the prescribed dose to the target and sparing normal tissues. This retrospective study evaluated the uncertainties in the planning and delivery of doses for prosthesis cases with dedicated phantom. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 11 patients with a hip prosthesis having cervix carcinoma were selected. Two treatment plans were generated on treatment planning system (TPS) for each case. Plan_No_Res was without any beam restriction, and Plan_exit_only was the plan with restricted beam entry through the metallic implant. An indigenous phantom was utilized to verify the accuracy of the treatment. In the phantom, some groves were present, which could be filled by implants that mimic the patient's geometries, like left, right and bilateral femur implants. The delivered doses were recorded using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs), which were placed at different positions in the phantom. The plans were further calculated using megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) scans acquired during treatment. Results: The patient data showed no significant dose changes between the two planning methods. The treatment time increases from 412.18 ± 86.65 to 427.36 ± 104.80 with Conclusion: The study showed the competency of tomotherapy planning for hip prosthesis cases. The phantom measurements demonstrate the errors in dosimetry near the implant material, suggesting the need for precise methods to deal with artifact-related issues.
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.