ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Survey results of 3D-CRT and IMRT quality assurance practice.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- COMP Report: Patient-specific quality assurance practices in Canadian radiotherapy-results from a national survey.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A survey of practice patterns for patient-specific quality assurance on behalf of the ESTRO dosimetry & quality assurance focus group.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Developing reference plans for evaluating global clinical trials credentialing and PSQA systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Research on the error pattern recognition of dosimetric quality assurance by Bayesian optimization.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Pathological Mechanisms of Radiation-Induced Lung Injury and Novel Nano-Drug Delivery Therapeutic Strategies.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
- Unifying gamma passing rates in patient-specific QA for VMAT lung cancer treatment based on data assimilation.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating AAPM-TG-218 recommendations: Gamma index tolerance and action limits in IMRT and VMAT quality assurance using SunCHECK.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- 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
- Application of a linear interpolation algorithm in radiation therapy dosimetry for 3D dose point acquisition.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparing log file to measurement-based patient-specific quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023Article
- Do we need patient-specific QA for adaptively generated plans? Retrospective evaluation of delivered online adaptive treatment plans on Varian Ethos.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- The Value of On-Site Proton Audits.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2022Article
- Survey on utilization of flattening filter-free photon beams in Japan.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Survey of patient-specific quality assurance practice for IMRT and VMAT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Independent Three-dimensional Dose Calculation from Log Files for Breast VMAT: A Measurement-free Quality Assurance Approach.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo create a snapshot of common practices for 3D-CRT and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA through a large-scale survey and compare to TG-218 recommendations.
methodsA survey of 3D-CRT and IMRT QA was constructed at and distributed by the IROC-Houston QA center to all institutions monitored by IROC (n = 2,861). The first part of the survey asked about methods to check dose delivery for 3D-CRT. The bulk of the survey focused on IMRT QA, inquiring about treatment modalities, standard tools used to verify planned dose, how assessment of agreement is calculated and the comparison criteria used, and the strategies taken if QA fails.
resultsThe most common tools for dose verification were a 2D diode array (52.8%), point(s) measurement (39.0%), EPID (27.4%), and 2D ion chamber array (23.9%). When IMRT QA failed, the highest average rank strategy utilized was to remeasure with the same setup, which had an average position ranking of 1.1 with 90.4% of facilities employing this strategy. The second highest average ranked strategy was to move to a new calculation point and remeasure (54.9%); this had an average ranking of 2.1.
conclusionThe survey provided a snapshot of the current state of dose verification for IMRT radiotherapy. The results showed variability in approaches and that work is still needed to unify and tighten criteria in the medical physics community, especially in reference to TG-218's recommendations.
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.