Evidence Hub

Detector-specific correction factors for small-field photon dosimetry in magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bedir ME, Khan AU, Culberson W

Medical physics, 2026

86 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Accurate small-field (SF) dosimetry is essential for Magnetic Resonance-guided Radiation Therapy (MRgRT), particularly for stereotactic treatments. The static magnetic field (B-field) alters detector response, necessitating detector-specific correction factors kB,Qf,f$k_{B,Q}^{f,f}$ to ensure dosimetric accuracy. While numerous studies have reported such factors, the published data shows considerable variability, creating uncertainty for clinical practice.

Purpose: This study was undertaken to (1) systematically review the literature on SF photon dosimetry in MRgRT and (2) perform a meta-analysis to pool quantitative data and investigate the sources of this variability.

Methods: A systematic search of four databases was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A qualitative synthesis was performed on all included studies (n = 86). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on studies providing correction factors (beam quality correction factor, kmsr; field output correction factor, kclin) or uncorrected output factors (FOF) for fields ≤ 4 × 4 cm2 with associated uncertainties (n = 13 studies, 441 data points). Heterogeneity (I2) was quantified, and subgroup analyses (B-field, detector model, and orientation) and meta-regression (field size) were used to investigate its sources.

Results: The qualitative review identified key themes in foundational physics, detector-specific characteristics, and clinical quality assurance. The meta-analysis revealed extremely…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 86 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free