ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Influence of applicator models on dose distribution in gynecologic high-dose-rate brachytherapy.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2026. 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.
- Applicator-dependent differences between TG-43 and a grid-based Boltzmann solver in iridium-192 high-dose-rate gynecological brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the influence of applicator models on dose distribution using Acuros BV (ABV) and the TG-43 protocol for high-dose-rate brachytherapy of gynecologic cancer. First, the dosimetric effects of a tandem and ovoid, tandem cylinder, and multichannel cylinder were evaluated on a water-equivalent phantom using the TG-43 protocol and two methods of applying ABV. One method calculated doses using a source model excluding the applicator model (ABVa), whereas the other included both source and applicator models (ABVb). Second, the doses calculated using ABV were compared with those obtained via TG-43 utilizing 53 clinical plans for gynecologic cancer. Dose-volume parameters were evaluated as per TG-43 for the high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) and organs at risk (OARs). A three-dimensional gamma pass rate (GPR) analysis was also conducted between TG-43 and the ABV plans based on a 3%/2 mm criterion with a low-dose threshold of 10%. The dose calculated by TG-43 was the highest, followed by those of ABVa and ABVb. The maximum dose differences between TG-43 and ABVa and between ABVa and ABVb were 10.4% and 11.7%, respectively. Regarding clinical plans, the dose differences between TG-43 and ABV were − 4.6% for HR-CTV and − 5.7 to -4.0% for OARs (all p < 0.05). The median GPR value for the 3%/2 mm criterion was 99.9% (minimum–maximum: 98.7–100.0%). The applicator causes dose attenuation, which also affects the dose distribution within the patient. The transition from TG43 to ABV should be rigorously evaluated to provide an accurate clinical perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41343138What 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.