ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
End-to-end technical validation of multi-isocenter total body irradiation using an anthropomorphic phantom.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to perform an end-to-end (E2E) technical validation of a total body irradiation (TBI) workflow using an anthropomorphic phantom, integrating simulation, treatment planning, patient-specific quality assurance, and phantom-based dosimetry to ensure accurate and reproducible dose delivery. A full E2E test was performed using the Rando Phantom and Varian Eclipse TPS. CT scans were acquired in head-first supine (HFS) and feet-first supine (FFS) orientations and registered to simulate full-body imaging. Treatment plans were optimized for both orientations, with specific gradient dose regions defined for overlap zones. ArcCHECK and OSLDs were used for pre-treatment and phantom-embedded dosimetric verification, respectively. Cone Beam CT (CBCT) assessed positional accuracy across eight treatment fractions. Dose discrepancies and alignment errors were evaluated across anatomical regions. HU comparison between the CT console and TPS revealed only minor deviations, all within ± 6 HU, supporting the consistency of HU representation in the TPS. Gamma passing rates exceeded 97% across most regions. OSLD dose differences remained within ± 2.5% for most sites, except thorax and overlap zones, which reached ± 4.8%. CBCT-based setup verification demonstrated sub-millimeter alignment deviations across fractions, indicating consistent positional accuracy. E2E validation using the Rando Phantom supports technical accuracy and consistency in the TBI workflow. Notable dose variations in overlap and heterogeneous regions highlight the need for enhanced QA in complex geometries. The findings support the technical feasibility and reproducibility of the workflow, while further patient-specific and motion-inclusive studies are required to establish broader clinical applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42635723What 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.