ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
The Impact of Dose Calibration Point Differences Between the Treatment Plan and Patient-specific Quality Assurance in Passive Scattering Proton Beam Therapy.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimPassive scattering proton beam therapy (PSPT) is performed by taking actual measurements of all pre-designated fields in a treatment plan followed by appropriate adjustments to the prescribed dose. For this reason, it is necessary to ensure precision management of the measurements (patient-specific calibration) in the administration of a planned dose. Therefore, this study investigated the impact on dose distribution in treatment planning when the patient calibration point differs from the normalized point in a treatment plan. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 16 cases were selected, where the patient calibration point and normalized point did not match, and the normalized point used in the treatment plan was changed to the patient calibration point using a treatment planning system (VQA ver. 2.01, HITACHI). At this point, the displacement of the relative dose at the isocenter was estimated as an error owing to the difference compared to the patient calibration point.
resultsOverall, the error was within the range of ±1.5%, with the exception of orbit cases. Calibrated points also tended to be lower than the normalized points in the treatment plan. In terms of treatment sites, a greater deviation was observed for head cases. Cases with a large deviation in sites other than the head were attributed to poor flatness within the radiation field owing to a narrower opening of the patient collimator.
conclusionDose measurement errors in PSPT due to differing calibration points were generally within ±1.5%, with higher deviations observed in head treatments because of complex structures and narrow collimator openings. A γ analysis for significant deviations showed a 98.7% passing rate, suggesting limited overall impact. It is important to select stable calibration points in dosimetry to ensure high precision in dose administration, particularly in complex treatment areas.
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.