ArticlePloS one2025
Feasibility study for dose calculation with a radiation treatment planning system using a fixed-size electron cone applicator for small electron fields.
Article in PloS one, 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
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the feasibility of radiation treatment planning using a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for small fixed-size electron cone electron applicators not natively supported by the TPS.
methodsDosimetric characteristics, including beam profiles and output factors (OFs), were compared between a 6 MeV electron beam collimated by a small fixed-size electron cone applicator and a cerrobend cutout-based general applicator. Measurements were performed using a micro-diamond detector in a water phantom for field sizes of 2, 3, 4, and 5 cm. The monitor units (MUs) from the TPS were compared with direct measurements. To estimate the MU for the fixed-size electron cone applicator using the TPS, the relative OFs were defined as the ratio of the OFs for the fixed-size electron cone and general applicators. Dose distributions obtained from the TPS were validated against measurements using Gafchromic films, ensuring accuracy.
resultsGamma analysis showed a passing rate >95% with 1%/1 mm criteria for depth dose comparisons and >99% with 2%/2 mm criteria for beam profiles. The general applicator's OFs were consistently higher across all measured field sizes. The MU difference between the TPS and measurements was within 2.0%, while the difference between indirect TPS calculations and direct measurements for the fixed-size electron cone applicator remained within 1.0%. Dose distribution analysis showed >99% agreement (3%/3 mm) between the 2D dose distribution obtained using film in the fixed-size electron cone applicator and that calculated by the TPS of cerrobend cutout-based applicator.
conclusionThe results demonstrate the feasibility of calculating monitor units and dose distributions for small fixed-size electron cone applicators using a commercial TPS combined with relative output factors. This approach offers a reliable method for dose calculation in specialized electron therapy applications.
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.