ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Accounting for TLD response to CBCT protocols in external beam radiotherapy dose monitoring.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metrology, Standards, and Mission: Synopsis of the 2026 Annual Meeting of the Council on Ionizing Radiation Measurements and Standards (CIRMS).Health physics · 2026Article
- Accounting for TLD response to CBCT protocols in external beam radiotherapy dose monitoring.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
purposeLiF thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are commonly used in radiation therapy to verify the delivered dose. Examples include dose verification for complicated treatment setups or cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). TLDs may be present for both the pre-treatment imaging kilovoltage (kV) beam and the megavoltage (MV) treatment beams. For low energy x-ray beams, where the photoelectric effect dominates, TLDs respond differently than tissue or water. An overresponse of up to 40% has been previously reported for lower-energy (kV) x-rays when calibrated to higher-energy (MV) beams. In this work, the response of TLDs to various cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols with calibrations in clinical therapy beams (MV) is quantified.
methodsThree Varian OBI (Head, Thorax, and Pelvis) and three Elekta XVI (Fast Head and Neck, Fast Chest, and Fast Pelvis) CBCT protocols were investigated. For each protocol, TLDs were positioned on a tissue equivalent phantom at various distances extending out from the center of the imaging field. The response was determined by calibrating TLDs to a 6 MV photon beam.
resultsThe maximum in-field TLD response ranged from 0.82 to 4.80 and 0.06 to 2.69 cGy for Varian OBI and Elekta XVI protocols, respectively. The out-of-field CBCT response dropped exponentially from the field edge. Calculated uncertainties were generally less than 3% (k = 1), with exceptions along the edge of the CBCT field (6%) and at the most distal TLD positions (34%).
conclusionsUsing the measured TLD responses to CBCT protocols with an MV calibration, the therapeutic dose can be isolated. The therapeutic dose can then be compared to predictions from the treatment planning system (TPS), allowing for more accurate dose verification for complex treatment setups and patients with CIEDs. The CBCT response can change the reported therapeutic dose by up to 2.5%.
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.