ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Comparative dosimetric analysis of base dose and gradient-based optimization in overlapping regions of extended target volumes using an anthropomorphic phantom.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compares the dosimetric performance of Base Dose Optimization (BDO) and Gradient-Based Optimization (GBO) for extended target volumes in Total Body Irradiation (TBI). The focus is on overlapping regions using the Rando Phantom. The study evaluates dose distribution, conformity, homogeneity, and sensitivity to positional deviations. The Rando Phantom was used for treatment planning with both BDO and GBO plans. Positional shifts of ± 5 mm and ± 10 mm were introduced to assess uncertainties. Dosimetric metrics included mean dose, minimum dose, maximum dose, homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI). Positional deviations and their impact on dose variations were analyzed. Quality assurance was performed using OSLDs and an array detector. The BDO plan delivered higher mean doses (103.6%-108.7%) and hotspot values, with a maximum of 133.7%. In contrast, the GBO plan produced a more uniform dose distribution (99.6%-100.3%) with lower hotspots, peaking at 112%. The BDO plan achieved better uniformity (HI 0.025-0.103) and higher conformity (CI 0.938-0.981). The GBO plan showed greater variability (HI 0.143-0.253) and slightly lower conformity (CI 0.941-0.964). Positional shifts revealed that the BDO plan was highly sensitive, with overdoses of + 46.60% and underdoses of - 47.29%. The GBO plan showed smaller deviations (+ 11.62% overdose, - 11.73% underdose). Gamma analysis demonstrated higher pass rates for the GBO plan. The BDO plan excels in target coverage and conformity but is sensitive to positional shifts. The GBO plan offers better uniformity and robustness, supporting its use in complex clinical scenarios. Further refinement of both approaches could improve clinical applicability and patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40913699What 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.