ArticleJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2024
Sensitivity of contributing factors to heterogeneity corrections in dosimetry of ocular brachytherapy using iodine-125 COMS plaques.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate sensitivity of contributing factors to heterogeneity corrections in ocular brachytherapy using iodine-125 ( Material and methods: Using egs_brachy, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed for Results: For a 16-mm diameter COMS plaque, in central axis, the dominant factor to heterogeneity corrections (dose reduction by 9.5-13.8% with heterogeneity) was Silastic insert at a depth ≤ 5 mm, whereas both Modulay backing and Silastic insert were contributing (range, 12.2-19.0%) at deeper depths. For off-axis, Silastic insert was the major factor to heterogeneity corrections (≥ 11.8%) at DT (MT) ≤ 6.9 (7.6) mm for optic disc (macula) and (range, 8.9-10.0%) at MT > 18.5 mm for lens, but both Modulay backing and Silastic insert were contributing (range, 18.3-24.4%) at farther DT (MT) for optic disc (macula) and (range, 12.8-18.2%) at MT ≤ 18.5 mm for lens. Interseed effects were small (≤ 1.7% for central axis and ≤ 2.3% for off-axis). Data for the other six plaques (10-14 mm and 18-22 mm diameter) presented similar trends. Conclusions: The use of universal HCF(s) for the two dominant factors determined in this study will facilitate heterogeneous dose estimates for each clinical scenario without an MC tool.
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.