ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2024
Dosimetric evaluation and Monte Carlo simulation of a new proposed surface brachytherapy mould.
Article in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 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.
- Cylindrical silicone applicator for superficial brachytherapy of the finger: Design and manufacturing.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop a new in-house low-cost surface mould, and to evaluate its performance and dosimetric properties for high-dose-rate (HDR) cobalt-60 ( Material and methods: A water-equivalent surface mould was developed using medical silicone. Mould performance and dosimetry characteristics were evaluated with Monte Carlo N-particle (MCNP2.6) simulation, Gafchromic™ EBT3 film measurements, and treatment planning system (TPS) output. Three sample moulds with different thicknesses (i.e., 0.5 cm, 1 cm, and 1.5 cm) were constructed, and a phantom study was performed. Treatment plans prescribing 3 Gy to 0.5 cm under pseudo-skin were designed, and film dosimetry was completed. TPS dose distributions were compared using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and film dosimetry. Results: Good consistency was observed between TPS results and film dosimetry at the prescribed depth of 0.5 cm, with mean differences of 0.70%, 0.40%, and 0.19% for mould thicknesses of 0.5 cm, 1 cm, and 1.5 cm, respectively. However, higher discrepancies were found at the phantom surface with 1.00%, 0.80%, and 0.56% dose differences for the considered mould thicknesses, respectively. These increased differences could be due to a higher dose gradient at the phantom surface, and a greater impact of uncertainties on the obtained results in this part. Moreover, mean differences between the results obtained from MC simulations and output of TPS at the prescribed depth of 0.5 cm were 0.73%, 0.60%, and 0.08% for mold thicknesses of 0.5 cm, 1 cm, and 1.5 cm, respectively. Higher variations were observed between TPS and MC at the phantom surface with 1.30%, 0.70%, and 0.13% dose differences for the considered mould thicknesses, respectively. Conclusions: The developed surface mould demonstrated water equivalence at
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.