Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27908168›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2016

Examining credentialing criteria and poor performance indicators for IROC Houston's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom.

Mallory E Carson, Andrea Molineu, Paige A Taylor, David S Followill, Francesco C Stingo, Stephen F Kry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. The radiotherapy quality assurance gap among phase III cancer clinical trials.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Characterizing the interplay of treatment parameters and complexity and their impact on performance on an IROC IMRT phantom using machine learning.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Mallory E CarsonGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas 77030.
Andrea MolineuIROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.
Paige A TaylorIROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.
David S FollowillIROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.
Francesco C StingoDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.
Stephen F KryIROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.

Funding

IROC: Enhancing local enrolling site radiological data capture capabilities for NCTN trialsU24CA180803 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI Thomas J. FitzGerald, MICHAEL V KNOPP · 2014 to 2026
$116.2M
NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyze the most recent results of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center's (IROC-H) anthropomorphic head and neck (H&N) phantom to determine the nature of failing irradiations and the feasibility of altering credentialing criteria.

methodsIROC-H's H&N phantom, used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy credentialing for National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials, requires that an institution's treatment plan agrees within ±7% of measured thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) doses; it also requires that ≥85% of pixels pass ±4 mm distance to agreement (7%/4 mm gamma analysis for film). The authors re-evaluated 156 phantom irradiations (November 1, 2014-October 31, 2015) according to the following tighter criteria: (1) 5% TLD and 5%/4 mm, (2) 5% TLD and 5%/3 mm, (3) 4% TLD and 4%/4 mm, and (4) 3% TLD and 3%/3 mm. Failure rates were evaluated with respect to individual film and TLD performance by location in the phantom. Overall poor phantom results were characterized qualitatively as systematic errors (correct shape and position but wrong magnitude of dose), setup errors/positional shifts, global but nonsystematic errors, and errors affecting only a local region.

resultsThe pass rate for these phantoms using current criteria was 90%. Substituting criteria 1-4 reduced the overall pass rate to 77%, 70%, 63%, and 37%, respectively. Statistical analyses indicated that the probability of noise-induced TLD failure, even at the 5% criterion, was <0.5%. Phantom failures were generally identified by TLD (≥66% failed TLD, whereas ≥55% failed film), with most failures occurring in the primary planning target volume (≥77% of cases). Results failing current criteria or criteria 1 were primarily diagnosed as systematic >58% of the time (11/16 and 21/36 cases, respectively), with a greater extent due to underdosing. Setup/positioning errors were seen in 11%-13% of all failing cases (2/16 and 4/36 cases, respectively). Local errors (8/36 cases) could only be demonstrated at criteria 1. Only three cases of global errors were identified in these analyses. For current criteria and criteria 1, irradiations that failed from film only were overwhelmingly associated with phantom shifts/setup errors (≥80% of cases).

conclusionsThis study highlighted that the majority of phantom failures are the result of systematic dosimetric discrepancies between the treatment planning system and the delivered dose. Further work is necessary to diagnose and resolve such dosimetric inaccuracy. In addition, the authors found that 5% TLD and 5%/4 mm gamma criteria may be both practically and theoretically achievable as an alternative to current criteria.

Indexed as

CredentialingFeasibility StudiesHeadHumansNeckPhantoms, ImagingQuality ControlRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated

Identifiers

PMID27908168
PMCPMC5106427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.