ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Assessment of out-of-field doses in pediatric radiotherapy.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The accurate estimation of absorbed doses outside the treatment field is relevant in pediatric radiotherapy due to radiosensitivity and long-life expectancy. This study aims to evaluate out-of-field doses in pediatric brain radiotherapy by comparing dose calculations from a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. A pediatric computational phantom representing a 10-year-old child treated for a brain tumor using Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) was used. Dose calculations were performed in the Eclipse TPS and compared with MC simulations carried out using PRIMO software. The MC source configuration, dose-normalization procedure, VMAT control-point reproduction and uncertainty assessment were described to improve reproducibility. Agreement between measurements and MC simulations was observed for reference PDDs, whereas discrepancies were obtained for small-field lateral profiles, mainly due to dose gradients and detector volume-averaging effects. Outside the treatment field, the TPS showed dose discrepancies when compared with MC simulations, particularly in organs located far from the target volume. In several OARs, the TPS underestimated the mean absorbed dose, while in some structures closer to the field, dose overestimation was observed. These out-of-field values were interpreted with caution because organ-specific experimental validation in the pediatric phantom was not available. Within the limitations of a single phantom and plan, MC simulations provide a complementary assessment of out-of-field doses and anatomical volumes when compared with TPS calculations. Their combined use can improve dosimetric characterization and support future pediatric radiotherapy studies, although experimental validation in anthropomorphic phantoms remains necessary before claiming patient-specific accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42446808What 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.