ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Dosimetric comparison of FF and FFF modes under non-ideal bolus-fitting conditions for post-mastectomy chest wall irradiations.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn post-mastectomy radiotherapy, tissue-equivalent bolus is routinely used to ensure adequate skin dose. However, achieving perfect contact on curved chest walls is challenging, often resulting in non-uniform air gaps. With the increasing adoption of Flattening Filter-Free (FFF) beams, it is crucial to understand how their distinct physical properties-specifically a softer energy spectrum-respond to these low-density gaps compared to Flattening Filter (FF) beams. Additionally, the accuracy of clinical dose calculation algorithms in these electronic disequilibrium regions remains a subject of concern. PURPOSE: This study aimed to quantify the impact of non-uniform air gaps on skin dose distribution, evaluate the accuracy of Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC) versus GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms in complex geometries, and determine the specific dosimetric thresholds for selecting FF or FFF beam modes.
methodsA cylindrical curved phantom (25 cm diameter) was constructed to simulate chest wall anatomy. Four interchangeable modules were designed to create controlled fit conditions: perfect fit, gradient gap (0-6 mm), and uniform gaps (3 and 6 mm). Skin dose measurements were performed using EBT3 films and MOSFET detectors. Dose calculations were conducted in the United Imaging uRT-TPS using 6 MV FF and FFF beams at gantry angles of 0°, 30°, and 60°.
resultsThe presence of gradient gaps substantially increased skin dose inhomogeneity, yielding a heterogeneity index of 0.28 for the FFF beam. The MC algorithm demonstrated high accuracy, agreeing with film measurements within 0.5%. In contrast, the CCC algorithm exhibited systematic underestimation in gap regions, with a mean error of -6.8% and a maximum deviation of -16.5%. Physically, the FFF beam (mean energy 1.23 MeV) was found to be more sensitive to air gaps than the FF beam (1.93 MeV) due to reduced lateral electron scatter. The FFF/FF dose ratio decreased linearly with increasing gap thickness (slope: -2.1%/mm). A clinical threshold was identified at approximately 2.3 mm; beyond this gap thickness, the FF beam exhibited superior dosimetric robustness. Furthermore, oblique incidence at 60° reduced the mean skin dose by approximately 9% compared to perpendicular incidence.
conclusionNon-uniform air gaps significantly degrade skin dose uniformity, with FFF beams being more susceptible to this effect than FF beams. The CCC algorithm shows limitations in these complex interface geometries, whereas the MC algorithm provides a reliable verification tool. Clinically, for regions where air gaps exceed 2.3 mm, the use of FF mode or optimization of bolus fitting is recommended to ensure adequate target coverage.
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.