Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Review of clinical brachytherapy uncertainties: Analysis guidelines of GEC-ESTRO and the AAPM

Open access
Kirisits, Christian, Rivard, Mark J., Baltas, Dimos, Ballester, Facundo, De Brabandere, Marisol, van der Laarse, Rob, Niatsetski, Yury, Papagiannis, Panagiotis, Hellebust, Taran Paulsen, Perez-Calatayud, Jose, Tanderup, Kari, Venselaar, Jack L.M., Siebert, Frank-André·2014·Radiotherapy and Oncology

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A substantial reduction of uncertainties in clinical brachytherapy should result in improved outcome in terms of increased local control and reduced side effects. Types of uncertainties have to be identified, grouped, and quantified. METHODS: A detailed literature review was performed to identify uncertainty components and their relative importance to the combined overall uncertainty. RESULTS: Very few components (e.g., source strength and afterloader timer) are independent of clinical disease site and location of administered dose. While the influence of medium on dose calculation can be substantial for low energy sources or non-deeply seated implants, the influence of medium is of minor importance for high-energy sources in the pelvic region. The level of uncertainties due to target, organ, applicator, and/or source movement in relation to the geometry assumed for treatment planning is highly dependent on fractionation and the level of image guided adaptive treatment. Most studies to date report the results in a manner that allows no direct reproduction and further comparison with other studies. Often, no distinction is made between variations, uncertainties, and errors or mistakes. The literature review facilitated the drafting of recommendations for uniform uncertainty reporting in clinical BT, which are also provided. The recommended comprehensive uncertainty investigations are key to obtain a general impression of uncertainties, and may help to identify elements of the brachytherapy treatment process that need improvement in terms of diminishing their dosimetric uncertainties. It is recommended to present data on the analyzed parameters (distance shifts, volume changes, source or applicator position, etc.), and also their influence on absorbed dose for clinically-relevant dose parameters (e.g., target parameters such as D90 or OAR doses). Publications on brachytherapy should include a statement of total dose uncertainty for the entire treatment course, taking into account the fractionation schedule and level of image guidance for adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: This report on brachytherapy clinical uncertainties represents a working project developed by the Brachytherapy Physics Quality Assurances System (BRAPHYQS) subcommittee to the Physics Committee within GEC-ESTRO. Further, this report has been reviewed and approved by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.11.002

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 314

Metadata

Authors
Kirisits, C., Rivard, M. J., Baltas, D., Ballester, F., De Brabandere, M., van der Laarse, R., Niatsetski, Y., Papagiannis, P., Hellebust, T. P., Perez-Calatayud, J., Tanderup, K., Venselaar, J. L. M., & Siebert, F.-A.
Venue
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
110
Issue
1
Pages
199-212
ISSN
0167-8140 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969290748
Cited by
314
References
22
FWCI
20.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Review of clinical brachytherapy uncertainties: Analysis guidelines of GEC-ESTRO and the AAPM. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.11.002
The paper
Kirisits, C., Rivard, M. J., Baltas, D., Ballester, F., De Brabandere, M., van der Laarse, R., Niatsetski, Y., Papagiannis, P., Hellebust, T. P., Perez-Calatayud, J., Tanderup, K., Venselaar, J. L. M., & Siebert, F.-A. (2014). Review of clinical brachytherapy uncertainties: Analysis guidelines of GEC-ESTRO and the AAPM. Radiotherapy and Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.11.002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.