Trial reportJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors.
Trial report 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- From 2D to 3D gamma passing rate tolerance and action limits for patient-specific quality assurance in volumetric-modulated arc therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Enhanced 3D dose prediction for hypofractionated SRS (gamma knife radiosurgery) in brain tumor using cascaded-deep-supervised convolutional neural network.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Prediction of patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy using radiomics-based machine learning with dose distribution.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Influence of air mapping errors on the dosimetric accuracy of prostate CBCT-guided online adaptive radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- A patient-specific QA comparison between 2D and 3D diode arrays for single-lesion SRS and SBRT treatments.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2021Article
- A comprehensive and clinical-oriented evaluation criteria based on DVH information and gamma passing rates analysis for IMRT plan 3D verification.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Study on the ability of 3D gamma analysis and bio-mathematical model in detecting dose changes caused by dose-calculation-grid-size (DCGS).Radiation oncology (London, England) · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors and investigated the correlation between two kinds of %GP. Eleven prostate IMRT cases were selected, and errors in multileaf collimator (MLC) bank sag, MLC leaf traveling, and machine output were simulated by recalculating the dose distributions in patients. 2D doses were extracted from the 3D doses at the isocenter position. The 3D and 2D %GPs with different gamma criteria were then obtained by comparing the recalculated and original doses in specific regions of interest (ROI), such as the whole body, the planning target volume (PTV), the bladder, and the rectum. The sensitivities to simulated errors of the two types of %GP were compared, and the correlation between the 2D and 3D %GPs for different ROIs were analyzed. For the whole-body evaluation, both the 2D and 3D %GPs with the 3%/3 mm criterion were above 90% for all tested MLC errors and for MU deviations up to 4%, and the 3D %GP was higher than the 2D %GP. In organ-specific evaluations, the PTV-specific 2D and 3D %GP gradients were -4.70% and -5.14% per millimeter of the MLC traveling error, and -17.79% and -20.50% per percentage of MU error, respectively. However, a stricter criterion (2%/1 mm) was needed to detect the tested MLC sag error. The Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant strong correlation (r > 0.8 and P < 0.001) between the 2D and 3D %GPs in the whole body and PTV-specific gamma evaluations. The whole-body %GP with the 3%/3 mm criterion was inadequate to detect the tested MLC and MU errors, and a stricter criterion may be needed. The PTV-specific gamma evaluation helped to improve the sensitivity of the error detection, especially using the 3D GP%.
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.