ArticleMedical physics2016
Examining credentialing criteria and poor performance indicators for IROC Houston's anthropomorphic head and neck phantom.
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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Guideline
- The radiotherapy quality assurance gap among phase III cancer clinical trials.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022Trial
- Credentialing of radiotherapy centres in Australasia for TROG 09.02 (Chisel), a Phase III clinical trial on stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy of early stage lung cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2018Trial
- Development of a cost-effective end-to-end commissioning test for simulation-omitted direct-to-unit adaptive radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Trends and Challenges: A 15-Year Review of Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Anthropomorphic Phantom Audits for Proton Therapy.International journal of particle therapy · 2026Article
- Experience with remote electronic portal imaging device-based dosimetric auditing for static and rotational intensity modulated radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Development of a phantom for assessing the precision of setup in skin mark-less surface-guided radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Dosimetric Validation of Treatment Planning System for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Using AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.b.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Commissioning of Mobius3D/FX for patient-specific quality assurance: The CUIMC-NewYork Presbyterian Hospital experience.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- A virtual audit system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy credentialing in Japan Clinical Oncology Group clinical trials: A pilot study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- 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 · 2023Article
- Quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of candidate template beam models for a matched TrueBeam treatment delivery system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Unlocking a closed system: dosimetric commissioning of a ring gantry linear accelerator in a multivendor environment.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Cross verification of independent dose recalculation, log files based, and phantom measurement-based pretreatment quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Future directions of in vivo dosimetry for external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2020Article
- Sensitivity of IROC phantom performance to radiotherapy treatment planning system beam modeling parameters based on community-driven data.Medical physics · 2020Article
- Dose calculation errors as a component of failing IROC lung and spine phantom irradiations.Medical physics · 2020Article
- Automated and robust beam data validation of a preconfigured ring gantry linear accelerator using a 1D tank with synchronized beam delivery and couch motions.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.