ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Evaluation of Concomitant Imaging Dose in 4D-CBCT Guided Thoracic Radiotherapy.
Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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
IntroductionThis retrospective study evaluated the imaging dose of 4D-CBCT in patients treated with thoracic radiotherapy.MethodsA geometric model of a 4D-CBCT system was built for Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. Percentage depth dose (PDD) and profiles of the system were measured and compared with MC calculations to verify the model. Eight lung cancer patients were retrospectively selected for 4D-CBCT imaging dose assessment. For each patient, the imaging dose was calculated using the CBCT log file, simulating CT and the MC model. Organ at risk (OAR) dose parameters from the imaging dose were calculated, and the effect of the imaging dose on OAR dose parameters when the imaging dose was added to the treatment dose was analyzed.ResultsDeviations between MC calculations and measurements for PDD and profiles were within 1.1% and 5%, respectively. For a pre-treatment 4D-CBCT scan, the mean lung and heart doses were 9.5 ± 1.4 mGy (mean value ± standard deviation, hereafter the same) and 9.7 ± 1.4 mGy, and the maximum spinal cord, esophagus and ribs doses were 17.6 ± 4.2 mGy, 17.1 ± 3.3 mGy and 37.8 ± 5.3 mGy, respectively. For an in-treatment 4D-CBCT scan, the dose parameters were 5.6 ± 1.8 mGy, 5.6 ± 1.5 mGy, 10.3 ± 3.5 mGy, 10.3 ± 4.3 mGy and 22.4 ± 5.3 mGy, respectively. The OAR dose parameters for in-treatment 4D-CBCT scans showed a relatively strong linear relationship with beam MU and number of frames. For patients receiving 5-fraction treatments and one pre-treatment and one in-treatment 4D-CBCT for each fraction, the increases in lung V20, lung V5, mean lung and heart doses, maximum spinal cord, esophagus and ribs doses were 0.04 ± 0.03%, 0.29 ± 0.23%, 76.3 ± 14.4 mGy, 76.5 ± 12.0 mGy, 76.3 ± 20.2 mGy, 70.5 ± 13.1 mGy and 101.2 ± 20.5 mGy, respectively. The increase in OAR dose parameters was proportional to the number of fractions.ConclusionThe imaging dose of pre-treatment and in-treatment 4D-CBCT was calculated using a validated MC model. For 5-fraction treatments, the imaging dose will likely have minimal clinical impact on OAR dose parameters.
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.