ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Practical experience in commissioning ring applicators using ring applicator component type with bravos control software v1.2.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Practical experience in commissioning ring applicators using ring applicator component type with bravos control software v1.2.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Bravos v1.2 control software introduces a ring applicator component type (ACT) with channel length verification to address geometric characteristics and dosimetric discrepancies caused by source positioning inaccuracies. This study aims to commission the ring applicator and investigate the new ring ACT in Bravos 1.2. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe evaluated two commissioning methods for a CT/MRI-compatible titanium ring applicator across three Bravos afterloaders and compared the new ring ACT with the traditional rigid ACT. Modifications to Varian's standard commissioning method included: (1) Delivering film plans with a 0.5 cm step size instead of 1 cm; (2) Alternating 0.3 s and 1 s dwell positions for enhanced source positioning analysis; (3) Including both "odd" and "even" positions to replicate clinical conditions. Films for 30-, 45-, and 60-degree rings (3.2 cm diameter) were delivered using modified methods and manual offsets of 0.0 cm, 0.1 cm, and 0.2 cm. Discrepancies between delivered and planned positions were analyzed, and the optimal offset was validated using clinical plans. Dosimetric differences for various gross tumor volumes (GTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were assessed.
resultsFilm analysis (216 films) identified 0.2 cm as the optimal offset for all rings and afterloaders, minimizing deviations between the planned and delivered dwell positions. The rigid ACT showed larger discrepancies. The optimal offset reduced physical dosimetric differences to < 1% for key clinical metrics (D95, D90, D2cc) across all angles, with negligible differences in EQD2 values.
conclusionA novel commissioning procedure was developed to determine an optimal offset for accurate source positioning and minimize dosimetric discrepancies with the ring ACT. This method improves accuracy compared to the rigid ACT and standardizes commissioning for Bravos afterloaders with the v1.2 control system.
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.