ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Design and validation of a novel dosimetry phantom for motion management audits.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- S2V-DREME: a time-resolved slice-to-volume MR image reconstruction framework with dynamic reconstruction and motion estimation.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- A novel audit methodology to improve detection of planning and delivery errors in passive motion management.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Design and validation of a novel dosimetry phantom for motion management audits.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe present a novel phantom design for conducting end-to-end dosimetry audits for respiratory motion management of two anatomical treatment sites. The design enables radiochromic film measurements of the dose administered to the target throughout the respiratory cycle (motion-included) and the dose delivered to the time-averaged motion of the phantom (motion-excluded) to be conducted simultaneously. PURPOSE: To demonstrate the phantom's utility in a dosimetry audit and capacity to detect errors by quantifying spatial and dosimetric reproducibility.
methodsSpatial and dosimetric reproducibility was quantified by repeat exposures using a simple lateral beam. Five exposures per measurement configuration were used. In each series of five measurements, the median film was used as the series reference to quantify the reproducibility of the remaining "test films." Spatial reproducibility was quantified by comparing the position of isodose lines in two axes on the test films back to the series reference. Dosimetric reproducibility was quantified using gamma comparison between each test film and the series reference. Proof-of-concept of the motion-excluded measurement capability was also established by comparing all films to treatment planning system (TPS) calculated dose distributions.
resultsSpatial reproducibility was better than 1 mm on all assessed metrics across all measurements. Film-to-film local gamma passing rates at 3%/0.6 mm were above 90% for all measurements. Film-to-TPS global gamma passing rates at 3%/1 mm were >95% in the motion-excluded measurement series', but <80% in the motion-included series, highlighting the utility of the motion-excluded measurements.
conclusionsMeasurements were highly reproducible and of sufficient accuracy/reproducibility to facilitate multiple avenues of analysis in a prospective dosimetry audit. Motion-excluded measurements were directly comparable to the TPS dose distribution. Motion-included measurements may yield more clinically-relevant information about the actual dose administered to the target. This promises greater sensitivity to motion management-related errors, detectable in the setting of a dosimetry audit for motion management.
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.