ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Encapsulated configuration of a flexible transparent adhesive bolus to improve surface conformity and skin safety in post-mastectomy radiation therapy.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the clinical feasibility and surface conformity of ClearFit2-Encapsulated, a technical configuration implemented to facilitate the clinical use of highly adhesive transparent boluses through a film-dressing encapsulation method for post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). ClearFit2 was encapsulated with a thin polyurethane film. Following benchmark phantom comparisons of three bolus configurations (ClearFit1, ClearFit2, and ClearFit2-Encapsulated) using planning CT, clinical performance was evaluated in eight PMRT patients using weekly cone-beam CT (CBCT) to quantify air-gap distances. In phantom evaluation, mean gaps were 3.9 ± 3.1 mm for ClearFit1, 0.9 ± 0.9 mm for ClearFit2, and 2.2 ± 2.2 mm for ClearFit2-Encapsulated. In clinical evaluation, the median air-gap distance across all cases was 1.1 mm (range: 0.6-1.7 mm), with 88.2% of the interface area maintaining gaps ≤ 3 mm. ClearFit2-Encapsulated demonstrates high surface conformity and clinical feasibility, providing a practical bolus-handling solution for patients undergoing PMRT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41870752What 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.