Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32677052›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2020

Sensitivity of IROC phantom performance to radiotherapy treatment planning system beam modeling parameters based on community-driven data.

Mallory C Glenn, Christine B Peterson, Rebecca M Howell, David S Followill, Julianne M Pollard-Larkin, Stephen F Kry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Statistical process control to monitor use of a web-based autoplanning tool.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mallory C GlennDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Christine B PetersonThe University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Rebecca M HowellDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
David S FollowillDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Julianne M Pollard-LarkinDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Stephen F KryDepartment of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
IROC: Enhancing local enrolling site radiological data capture capabilities for NCTN trialsU24CA180803 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI Thomas J. FitzGerald, MICHAEL V KNOPP · 2014 to 2026
$116.2M
Correcting Dose Calculation Errors in Radiation OncologyR01CA214526 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI KRY, STEPHEN F · 2017 to 2020
$594k
HHS | NIH | National Cancer Institute (NCI) CA180803HHS | NIH | National Cancer Institute (NCI) CA214526HHS | NIH | National Cancer Institute (NCI) P30CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA214526NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTreatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations have previously been shown to be sensitive to modeling errors, especially when treating with complex strategies like intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This work investigates the dosimetric impact of several dosimetric and nondosimetric beam modeling parameters, based on their distribution in the radiotherapy community, in two commercial TPSs in order to understand the realistic potential for dose deviations and their clinical effects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Beam models representing standard 120-leaf Varian Clinac-type machines were developed in Eclipse 13.5 (AAA algorithm) and RayStation 9A (v8.99, collapsed-cone algorithm) based upon median values of dosimetric measurements from Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston site visit data and community beam modeling parameter survey data in order to represent a baseline linear accelerator. Five clinically acceptable treatment plans (three IMRT, two VMAT) were developed for the IROC head and neck phantom. Dose distributions for each plan were recalculated after individually modifying parameters of interest (e.g., MLC transmission, percent depth doses [PDDs], and output factors) according to the 2.5th to 97.5

resultsFor Eclipse, dose calculations were sensitive to changes in the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG), which resulted in differences from -5% to +3% to the targets relative to the baseline beam model. Modifying the MLC transmission factor introduced differences up to ± 1%. For RayStation, parameters determining MLC behaviors likewise contributed substantially; the MLC offset introduced changes in dose from -4% to +7%, and the MLC transmission caused changes of -4% to +2%. Among the dosimetric qualities examined, changes in PDD implementation resulted in the most substantial changes, but these were only up to ±1%. Other dosimetric factors had <1% impact on dose accuracy. Interplay between impactful parameters was found to be minimal.

conclusionFactors related to the modeling of the MLC, particularly relating to the leaf offset, can cause clinically significant changes in the calculated dose for IMRT and VMAT plans. This should be of concern to the radiotherapy community because the clinical effects of poor TPS commissioning were based on reported data from clinically implemented beam models. These results further reinforce that dose errors caused by poor TPS calculations are often involved in IROC phantom failures.

Indexed as

Radiation OncologyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedPhantoms, ImagingRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedbeam modelingMLCquality assurancetreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID32677052
PMCPMC7689833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.