ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
A comparative evaluation of surface dose values: radiochromic film measurements versus computational predictions from different radiotherapy planning algorithms.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2026. 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
Accurate prediction of surface doses is crucial for clinical outcomes in radiotherapy. Surface dose distribution must be predicted accurately by calculation algorithms in the treatment planning system (TPS). This study aims to compare surface dose calculations from the Eclipse TPS with radiochromic film measurements to evaluate the reliability of these calculation algorithms. Measurements with radiochromic films were performed using 6 MV photon beams. Treatment plans for 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) were generated on the TPS and calculated using various algorithms. Treatment plans were irradiated on Gafchromic EBT3 films with a PTW head and neck phantom. EBT3 films were compared to calculation algorithms via FilmQA™ Pro (version 7.0) software with multi-channel analysis. Dosimetric evaluations were statistically analyzed. Commercial calculation algorithms underestimated the surface dose in 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT treatment plans. For 3DCRT, the underestimations were 8.0% with the AAA algorithm and 8.7% with AXB. In VMAT, the underestimations were 10.2% with AAA and 12.9% with AXB. For IMRT, the underestimations were 6.6% with AAA and 7.3% with AXB. The AAA algorithm closely matched surface dose measurements among calculation methods. The dosimetric results indicate that both AAA and AXB algorithms, as implemented in the Eclipse™ TPS, tend to underestimate surface dose compared to EBT3 film measurements. Accurate knowledge of the dose in the superficial region is crucial to prevent acute skin reactions or to deliver an effective dose to superficial tumors in clinically significant cases. Therefore, our surface dose measurements offer more accurate evaluations, making Gafchromic EBT3 films suitable for such cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41037238What 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.