ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Quality assurance for a six degrees-of-freedom table using a 3D printed phantom.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dosimetric Evaluation of Commercially Available Flat vs. Self-Produced 3D-Conformal Silicone Boluses for the Head and Neck Region.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- 3D printing technology will eventually eliminate the need of purchasing commercial phantoms for clinical medical physics QA procedures.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo establish a streamlined end-to-end test of a 6 degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) robotic table using a 3D printed phantom for periodic quality assurance.
methodsA 3D printed phantom was fabricated with translational and rotational offsets and an imbedded central ball-bearing (BB). The phantom underwent each step of the radiation therapy process: CT simulation in a straight orientation, plan generation using the treatment planning software, setup to offset marks at the linac, registration and corrected 6DoF table adjustments via hidden target test, delivery of a Winston-Lutz test to the BB, and verification of table positioning via field and laser lights. The registration values, maximum total displacement of the combined Winston-Lutz fields, and a pass or fail criterion of the laser and field lights were recorded. The quality assurance process for each of the three linacs were performed for the first 30 days.
resultsWithin a 95% confidence interval, the overall uncertainty values for both translation and rotation were below 1.0 mm and 0.5° for each linac respectively. When combining the registration values and other uncertainties for all three linacs, the average deviations were within 2.0 mm and 1.0° of the designed translation and rotation offsets of the 3D print respectively. For all three linacs, the maximum total deviation for the Winston-Lutz test did not exceed 1.0 mm. Laser and light field verification was within tolerance every day for all three linacs given the latest guidance documentation for table repositioning.
conclusionThe 3D printer is capable of accurately fabricating a quality assurance phantom for 6DoF positioning verification. The end-to-end workflow allows for a more efficient test of the 6DoF mechanics while including other important tests needed for routine quality assurance.
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.