ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Radiation dose at the eye lens of patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Linear accelerator irradiation, the most common treatment for head and neck cancer, requires accurate prediction of lens radiation doses to ensure patient safety. The eye lens, being highly radiosensitive and vulnerable to scattered radiation, is at increased risk of developing cataracts. This study compared radiation doses calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) with those measured in vivo using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters placed on the eyes of 18 patients undergoing radiotherapy for various head and neck cancers. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement between the two methods. The results showed that TPS-calculated doses were significantly higher than OSL-measured doses, with TPS values averaging twice as high. However, in three cases, the measured OSL doses exceeded the TPS predictions. The Bland-Altman plot revealed poor agreement between the two methods. The mean doses to the left and right eye lenses were 182 cGy and 170 cGy, respectively, with the highest recorded doses being 492 cGy for the left eye and 513 cGy for the right eye. Patients with nasopharyngeal cancer received the highest doses, and four patients had doses in the 3-5 Gy range, increasing their risk of cataracts. These findings emphasize the importance of validating TPS accuracy in clinical practice to ensure optimal patient care. Further research is necessary to explore the discrepancies between dose measurements and enhance TPS precision, improving clinical outcomes and patient safety in radiation therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39923219What 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.