ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Latent density discrepancies in commercial lung-equivalent inserts and their clinical dosimetric impact.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate heterogeneity correction in high-precision radiotherapy relies on precise computed tomography (CT) number-to-density conversion via the Hounsfield unit look-up table (HLUT). While physical properties of tissue-equivalent materials are generally assumed consistent with manufacturer specifications, an independent audit identified clinically significant density discrepancies in commercially available lung-equivalent phantom inserts. PURPOSE: This study evaluates the physical properties of nonconforming lung inserts through mass measurements and stoichiometric analysis, and assesses the clinical dosimetric impact of the associated density discrepancies.
methodsFive lung-inhale inserts manufactured in 2010, 2015, and 2024 (10A, 10B, 15A, 15B, and 24A) were analyzed. Mass and physical dimensions were measured in triplicate using a precision balance (1 mg resolution) and vernier calipers. Stoichiometric analysis was conducted using reference materials to evaluate the tissue-equivalence of the inserts and quantify deviations from the theoretical baseline. A nonconforming table and a conforming reference table (RT) were established, derived from inserts 10A and 24A, respectively. For clinical impact assessment, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for three clinical cases involving centrally located lung tumors (utilizing both inspiration breath-hold (IBH) and free-breathing) were optimized for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and recalculated with the RT using the Acuros XB algorithm. Differences in gross tumor volume (GTV) mean dose and planning target volume (PTV) D95% were evaluated to quantify the dosimetric consequences.
resultsThe 2010 inserts (10A and 10B) exhibited a 17.1% mass reduction and lower CT numbers compared to the reference 24A insert. Dimensional variations were negligible (≤ 0.2 mm) across all samples. Clinical recalculation revealed maximum dose reductions of 2.1% for the GTV mean dose and 3.0% for the PTV D95% in the worst-case scenario. These errors exceed the 2% clinical tolerance, propagated by HLUT interpolation across the low-density range.
conclusionsSubstantial inter-lot density variations in commercial calibration phantoms can lead to dosimetric errors that exceed established clinical limits, particularly for centrally located tumors treated with IBH. Medical physicists must not implicitly rely on nominal manufacturer values; independent audits and initial mass screening at acceptance are highly recommended for maintaining dose calculation accuracy.
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.