Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26699558›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2015

Noncoplanar verification: a feasibility study using Philips' Pinnacle3 treatment planning system.

Indra Yohannes, Heru Prasetio, Christoph Bert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Indra YohannesUniversity Hospital Erlangen. indra.yohannes@uk-erlangen.de.
Heru Prasetio
Christoph Bert

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Noncoplanar fields are normally used to improve the dose conformity of the target while sparing organs at risk. One of the methods to verify the dose distribution from the noncoplanar fields is by comparing their planar dose distributions from the treatment planning system (TPS) and the measured ones; for example, using film or electronic portal imaging devices (EPID). The planar dose distributions of the measurement tools, that are normally perpendicular to the central axis of the beam, can be calculated by creating special structures to mimic them in the TPS. With TPS commercially available today, however, it is not easy to create these special structures, especially in the noncoplanar configuration. For this work, we have written in-house scripts in the Pinnacle(3) TPS that can create the structures and define them as virtual planes. These virtual planes can be generated for any arbitrary gantry and couch angles, as well as source to planar distance, so that the planar dose maps at these planes can be computed. Two independent quality assurance (QA) tools were used to validate the planar dose distributions computed using the scripts for three open fields and one IMRT field at several different couch angles. The absolute planar dose patterns measured by the QA tools for all fields at all couch angles were found to be in good agreement, more than 95% (gamma criteria 3% delta dose and 3 mm distance to agreement), with the calculated ones by TPS. The results of this feasibility study can be valuable either for pretreatment dose verification or for in vivo dosimetry that directly implements the planar dose distributions from the TPS, particularly for the noncoplanar fields.

Indexed as

CalibrationFeasibility StudiesFilm DosimetryHumansOrgans at RiskQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID26699558
PMCPMC5691022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.