ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Characterization of novel 3D-printed metal shielding for brachytherapy applicators.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Characterization of novel 3D-printed metal shielding for brachytherapy applicators.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Application of 3D printing technology in the surgical management of advanced ovarian serous carcinoma: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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
purposeTo characterize 3D-printed stainless steel metal samples in the presence of an Iridium-192 source for organ-at-risk sparing in gynecologic brachytherapy.
methodsSamples of 3D-printed stainless steel (5.5 × 5.5 cm
resultsThe planar dose passing through the metal samples (thickness 1-5 mm) at the midpoint between the film and catheters, decreased compared to solid water by 7.4% ± 6.9% to 26.5% ± 5.5%. Dose enhancement on the order of 5% was noted when metal was directly adjacent to the film. The average decrease in depth dose from a single dwell position ranged from 10.0% ± 5.9% (1 mm) to 21.1% ± 5.3% (5 mm) as measured with film, and from 3.8% ± 0.9% (1 mm) to 16.3% ± 0.9% (5 mm) using MC simulation. The average depth dose values were measured using a line width of 2.5 mm for film, and 3 mm for MC simulation, and the measurements generally agree within standard error.
conclusionsThe 3D-printed metal samples show potential for personalized applicators. Maximum dose reduction of 26.5% ± 5.5% compared to solid water was measured at 2 cm from the source using the 5 mm sample. An outer layer of solid water could potentially be used to reduce dose enhancement due to increased scatter near the metal.
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.