Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27167282›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016

VMAT linear accelerator commissioning and quality assurance: dose control and gantry speed tests.

Michael P Barnes, Pejman Rowshanfarzad, Peter B Greer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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.

Michael P BarnesCalvary Mater Hospital Newcastle; University of Newcastle. michael.barnes@calvarymater.org.au.
Pejman Rowshanfarzad
Peter B Greer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In VMAT treatment delivery the ability of the linear accelerator (linac) to accurately control dose versus gantry angle is critical to delivering the plan correctly. A new VMAT test delivery was developed to specifically test the dose versus gantry angle with the full range of allowed gantry speeds and dose rates. The gantry-mounted IBA MatriXX with attached inclinometer was used in movie mode to measure the instantaneous relative dose versus gantry angle during the plan every 0.54 s. The results were compared to the expected relative dose at each gantry angle calculated from the plan. The same dataset was also used to compare the instantaneous gan-try speeds throughout the delivery compared to the expected gantry speeds from the plan. Measurements performed across four linacs generally show agreement between measurement and plan to within 1.5% in the constant dose rate regions and dose rate modulation within 0.1 s of the plan. Instantaneous gantry speed was measured to be within 0.11°/s of the plan (1 SD). An error in one linac was detected in that the nominal gantry speed was incorrectly calibrated. This test provides a practical method to quality-assure critical aspects of VMAT delivery including dose versus gantry angle and gantry speed control. The method can be performed with any detector that can acquire time-resolved dosimetric information that can be synchronized with a measurement of gantry angle. The test fulfils several of the aims of the recent Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS) Report 24, which provides recommendations for comprehensive VMAT quality assurance.

Indexed as

CalibrationElectrical Equipment and SuppliesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeoplasmsParticle AcceleratorsQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID27167282
PMCPMC5690937

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.