ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
In vivo dosimetry using an electronic portal imaging device for pediatric myeloablative Total body irradiation with volumetric modulated arc therapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) has enabled highly conformal Total Body Irradiation (TBI), improving dose homogeneity and sparing of organs-of-interest. However, the increased complexity of VMAT-based TBI requires robust quality assurance strategies. This study evaluated the feasibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID)-based in-vivo dosimetry (IVD) for VMAT TBI treatments. Materials and Methods: Forty pediatric patients treated with VMAT-based TBI were retrospectively analyzed with two prescription schemes: 12 Gy/six fractions and 9.99 Gy/three fractions. EPID transmission images were acquired during each VMAT arc and analyzed using a gamma passing rate (Pγ) of 5%/2 mm, 10% threshold. IVD was evaluated across different anatomical regions. The impact of inter-fraction anatomical variations (weight loss, abdominal swelling, gastrointestinal air) was assessed through dose recalculations on modified CT datasets. Phantom measurements were performed to validate the sensitivity of EPID-based IVD to clinically relevant perturbations. Results: IVD measurements showed median Pγ of 97.3 ± 3.2%. Across the forty patients, a mean Pγ of 99.3 ± 0.8% and 99.0 ± 0.4% was observed in the head and thoracic regions respectively, lower values (96.5 ± 3.4% and 94.3 ± 3.6%) were found in the lumbar and pelvic regions respectively. Simulated abdominal swelling ≥1.5 cm reduced target coverage, while weight loss and gastrointestinal air had limited dosimetric impact. Phantom tests confirmed IVD sensitivity to significant anatomical changes. Conclusions: EPID-based IVD was a feasible tool for verifying VMAT-based TBI, enabling detection of clinically relevant inter-fraction anatomical variations and supporting safe treatment delivery.
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.