ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2017
Radiation Therapy Deficiencies Identified During On-Site Dosimetry Visits by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center.
Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 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
- Predicting VMAT patient-specific quality assurance outcome using a machine learning workflow.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Dosimetric impact of calibration coefficients determined using linear accelerator photon and electron beams for ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit.Journal of radiation research · 2024Article
- Integrating plan complexity and dosiomics features with deep learning in patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials Requiring Radiation Therapy in Sub-Saharan Africa.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2023Review
- Quality improvements in radiation oncology clinical trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Application programming interface guided QA plan generation and analysis automation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Simplified sigmoidal curve fitting for a 6 MV FFF photon beam of the Halcyon to determine the field size for beam commissioning and quality assurance.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Dose calculation errors as a component of failing IROC lung and spine phantom irradiations.Medical physics · 2020Article
- A comparison of IROC and ACDS on-site audits of reference and non-reference dosimetry.Medical physics · 2019Article
- Remote beam output audits: a global assessment of results out of tolerance.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2018Article
- Reference dosimetry data and modeling challenges for Elekta accelerators based on IROC-Houston site visit data.Medical physics · 2018Article
- Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2018Article
- Novel methodologies for dosimetry audits: Adapting to advanced radiotherapy techniques.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo review the dosimetric, mechanical, and programmatic deficiencies most frequently observed during on-site visits of radiation therapy facilities by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Quality Assurance Center in Houston (IROC Houston). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The findings of IROC Houston between 2000 and 2014, including 409 institutions and 1020 linear accelerators (linacs), were compiled. On-site evaluations by IROC Houston include verification of absolute calibration (tolerance of ±3%), relative dosimetric review (tolerances of ±2% between treatment planning system [TPS] calculation and measurement), mechanical evaluation (including multileaf collimator and kilovoltage-megavoltage isocenter evaluation against Task Group [TG]-142 tolerances), and general programmatic review (including institutional quality assurance program vs TG-40 and TG-142).
resultsAn average of 3.1 deficiencies was identified at each institution visited, a number that has decreased slightly with time. The most common errors are tabulated and include TG-40/TG-142 compliance (82% of institutions were deficient), small field size output factors (59% of institutions had errors ≥3%), and wedge factors (33% of institutions had errors ≥3%). Dosimetric errors of ≥10%, including in beam calibration, were seen at many institutions.
conclusionsThere is substantial room for improvement of both dosimetric and programmatic issues in radiation therapy, which should be a high priority for the medical physics community. Particularly relevant was suboptimal beam modeling in the TPS and a corresponding failure to detect these errors by not including TPS data in the linac quality assurance process.
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.