ArticleMedical physics2018
Reference dosimetry data and modeling challenges for Elekta accelerators based on IROC-Houston site visit data.
Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Modeling Elekta VersaHD using the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system for photon beams: A single-institution experience.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2019Trial
- Reference dosimetry data and machine performance comparison for tomotherapy delivery systems audited by IROC.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- 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
- Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022Article
- Dose calculation errors as a component of failing IROC lung and spine phantom irradiations.Medical physics · 2020Article
- Reference dataset of users' photon beam modeling parameters for the Eclipse, Pinnacle, and RayStation treatment planning systems.Medical physics · 2020Article
- Independent recalculation outperforms traditional measurement-based IMRT QA methods in detecting unacceptable plans.Medical physics · 2019Article
- Differences in the Patterns of Failure Between IROC Lung and Spine Phantom Irradiations.Practical radiation oncologyArticle
- The current status and shortcomings of stereotactic radiosurgery.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeReference dosimetry data can provide an independent second check of acquired values when commissioning or validating a treatment planning system (TPS). The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core at Houston (IROC-Houston) has measured numerous linear accelerators throughout its existence. The results of those measurements are given here, comparing accelerators and the agreement of measurement versus institutional TPS calculations.
methodsData from IROC-Houston on-site reviews from 2000 through 2014 were analyzed for all Elekta accelerators, approximately 50. For each, consistent point dose measurements were conducted for several basic parameters in a water phantom, including percentage depth dose, output factors, small-field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The results were compared by accelerator type independently for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV. Distributions of the measurements for each parameter are given, providing the mean and standard deviation. Each accelerator's measurements were also compared to its corresponding TPS calculation from the institution to determine the level of agreement, as well as determining which dosimetric parameters were most often in error.
resultsAccelerators were grouped by head type and reference dosimetric values were compiled. No class of linac had better overall agreement with its TPS, but percentage depth dose and output factors commonly agreed well, while small-field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors often disagreed substantially from their TPS calculations.
conclusionReference data has been collected and analyzed for numerous Elekta linacs, which provide an independent way for a physicist to double-check their own measurements to prevent gross treatment errors. In addition, treatment planning parameters more often in error have been highlighted, providing practical caution for physicists commissioning treatment planning systems for Elekta linacs.
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.