ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
A multi-institutional survey on technical variations in total body irradiation in Japan.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to survey technical variations in total body irradiation (TBI) across Japan. A web-based questionnaire investigating technical aspects (irradiation method, in vivo dosimetry, organ shielding, and boluses) of TBI was distributed via the authors' acquaintances in each region of Japan using snowball sampling, and 73 institutions responded. The data were collected from January to April 2024. Three institutions used two distinct irradiation methods, yielding 76 reported techniques. The reported irradiation techniques included long source-to-surface distance (SSD) techniques, which involve using a large field and extended distance; helical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using specialized equipment (e.g., TomoTherapy), moving couch techniques, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using a standard C-arm linac, with responses totaling 60 (79%), 10 (13%), 4 (5%), and 2 (3%), respectively. All institutions performing IMRT-based (helical IMRT and VMAT) TBI used computed tomography simulation with the patient in the supine position and utilized a 6 MV photon beam. Conversely, the long SSD technique exhibited significant variation; while 47 institutions treated patients exclusively in the supine position, others reported using the prone and lateral positions. Furthermore, the photon beam energies varied, with 10 MV (41 responses), 6 MV (20 responses), and 4 MV (1 response) reported. Notably, 17 institutions using long SSD techniques did not perform in vivo dosimetry and 32 did not use boluses. The differences in the methods used to shield the organs were also reported. These variations highlight the need for standardization of in vivo dosimetry, dose homogeneity strategies, and organ-shielding in TBI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40085418What 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.