ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Evaluation of a non-metallic dual-port expander for intensity modulated proton therapy.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a non-metallic dual-port expander for intensity modulated proton therapy.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide a methodology for characterization of the technical properties of a newly developed non-metallic tissue expander for intensity modulated proton therapy.
methodsThree tissue expanders (AlloX2-Pro: plastic-dual port, AlloX2: metal-dual port, and Dermaspan: metal-single port) were deconstructed, CT-scanned, and modeled in RayStation12A. A 165 MeV single spot was used to create RayStation dose planes, and the integrated depth dose profiles were calculated and the DR90 extracted to predict water equivalent thickness (WET). These predictions were compared to measurements taken with an IBA Giraffe MLIC. Native, water, and fully modelled overrides were compared for the AlloX2 Pro to quantify differences in override choices. Geometric considerations between expanders were compared using a ray-tracing technique to contour the "no-fly" zone around metallic components using a clinical, three beam arrangement. Lastly, a planning and evaluation framework was provided using a single plan as an illustration.
resultsThe measured AlloX2-Pro WET values were within 0.22 cm of RayStation predictions while metallic values ranged from 0.08 to 0.46 cm. Using natively scanned density values for the AlloX2 Pro improved the discrepancy in WET between predicted and measured from -0.22 to -0.09 cm (drain) and from -0.17 to -0.12 cm (injection). The "no-fly" zone volume of all three beams reduced 95% between the AlloX2-Pro and Dermaspan, which geometrically allowed more uniform coverage behind the port and reduced need for beam modulation.
conclusionThe beam perturbation of the AlloX2-Pro is well modeled, but improved agreement with measured WET values was observed when utilizing native densities in calculations. The AlloX2 Pro can support beam arrangements that traverse the ports, which can enable simpler beam geometry and a reduction in dose modulation around the port to promote improved robustness and treatment delivery quality.
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.