ArticleRadiological physics and technology2016
Rotational output and beam quality evaluations for helical tomotherapy with use of a third-party quality assurance tool.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2016. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our aim was to determine whether a third-party quality assurance (QA) tool was suitable for the measurement of rotational output and beam quality in place of on-board detector signals. A Rotational Therapy Phantom 507 (507 Phantom) was used as a QA tool. The rotational output constancy (ROC507) and the beam quality index ([Formula: see text]) were evaluated by analysis of signals from an ion chamber inserted into the 507 Phantom. On-board detector signals were obtained for comparisons with the data from the 507 Phantom. The rotational output (ROC(detector)) and beam quality (corrected cone ratio; CCR) were determined by analysis of on-board detector signals that were generated by irradiation. The tissue phantom ratio at depth 20 and 10 cm (TPR20, 10) was measured with a Farmer-type ionization chamber inserted in a plastic-slab phantom. For rotational output measurement, the correlation coefficient between ROC507 and ROC(detector) values was 0.68 (p < 0.001). ROC507 and ROC(detector) values showed a reduced coefficient of variation after magnetron replacement, which was done during the measurement period. In addition, ROC507 values were reduced significantly along with ROC(detector) values after target replacement (p < 0.001). Regarding the beam quality index, [Formula: see text] showed a change similar to CCR and an increase similar to TPR20, 10 after magnetron/target replacement. This QA tool could check for daily rotational output and detect changes in rotational output and beam quality caused by magnetron or target failure as well as when on-board detector signals were used. Without needing a tomotherapy quality assurance license, we could effectively and quantitatively estimate the rotational output and beam quality at a low cost.
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.