ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Experimental and computational dosimetry in an integrated workflow for remote audits in Ir-192 interstitial brachytherapy: Development and pilot implementation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Experimental and computational dosimetry in an integrated workflow for remote audits in Ir-192 interstitial brachytherapy: Development and pilot implementation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis work presents the development and pilot implementation of a comprehensive remote (postal) dosimetry audit for Ir-192 High Dose Rate interstitial brachytherapy, integrating independent experimental and computational dosimetry procedures into a unified workflow.
methodsA compact, water-equivalent phantom was designed to accommodate two plastic catheters, ten Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeters (OSLDs), and two radiochromic films, allowing for independent point-approximating and 2D dose measurements. In the pilot study, a user-selected treatment plan (36 source dwell positions) was generated using a clinical Treatment Planning System (TPS), after considering the optimal dose range of the dosimeters. By analyzing the DICOM-RT files, a computational dosimetry audit test was also performed using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, enabling independent 3D dose calculations for the same plan and phantom geometry. All dosimetry results were compared to TPS calculations (TG43 and a Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithm, MBDCA) using the 3D Gamma Index (GI) test, dose difference maps, and dose-volume histogram comparisons, wherever applicable. All procedures were designed for a minimum clinical workload burden.
resultsThe pilot study was completed within 10 days of phantom delivery to the clinical site. If necessary, measurements were corrected by applying appropriate correction factors determined by conducting side studies. GI passing criteria were adapted to the uncertainty of each dosimetry system. Excellent agreement between MBDCA dose predictions and experimental or MC results was observed. Within the volume of interest, a systematic overestimation by TG43 relative to MC results (median difference: +2.16%) was attributed to missing scatter conditions and phantom material.
conclusionDespite the labor-intensive workflow for the auditing institution, the developed protocol is suitable for remote Ir-192 audits with acceptable uncertainties. Combining experimental and computational methods strengthens the reliability of audit outcomes. Overall results of this work highlight the advantages of an integrated dosimetry protocol for comprehensive and rigorous auditing programs.
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.