ReviewTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Magnetic-Field-Induced Secondary-Electron Effects in MR-Guided Radiotherapy: From Dosimetric Mechanisms to Workflow-Based Clinical Risk Management.
Review in Technology in cancer research & treatment. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) combines high-contrast MRI, online adaptation, and radiation delivery in a single treatment workflow. The static magnetic field, however, changes the transport of secondary electrons generated by megavoltage photons and can produce dose perturbations that depend strongly on anatomy and beam geometry. This review examines the underlying physics, with emphasis on Lorentz-force deflection, the electron return effect (ERE) at density interfaces, and the electron streaming effect (ESE) in favorable geometries. It also considers where conventional DVH-based review may miss small, spatially confined hot or cold regions. We discuss magnetic-field-aware dose calculation, Monte Carlo and accelerated methods, independent verification, and delivered-dose reconstruction in adaptive workflows. Evidence is then considered by anatomical site, including the head and neck, thorax, and abdomen. Across these settings, clinical importance is determined mainly by the location and size of the perturbation and its relation to normal-tissue tolerance. Data from 0.35 T and 1.5 T systems show that relevant effects can persist after reoptimization, vary with motion, and respond differently to additional beam angles. In representative planning studies, a 1.5 T field increased skin D2% by about 1.4 Gy in simulated lung SBRT, whereas reoptimization in head-and-neck plans reduced the mean increase in skin Dmax from 5.43 to 1.68 Gy. We therefore treat magnetic-field-induced dose effects as geometry-specific risks that should be identified and controlled prospectively. The review concludes with practical guidance on where to inspect dose, when additional verification is justified, and which mitigation strategies are supported by current evidence.
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.