ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Cross verification of independent dose recalculation, log files based, and phantom measurement-based pretreatment quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing log file-based patient-specific QA for VMAT plans: A comparative study of MobiusFX and measurement-based approaches.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A pathway away from measurement-based patient-specific QA: A review of contemporary quality assurance for external-beam radiotherapy sub-systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Impact of log file source and data frequency on accuracy of log file-based patient specific quality assurance.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- Preliminary study on dosimetry characteristics of a novel cylindrical dose verification system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Comparing log file to measurement-based patient-specific quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023Article
- Insensitivity of machine log files to MLC leaf backlash and effect of MLC backlash on clinical dynamic MLC motion: An experimental investigation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of 4-Hz log files and secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation as patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT prostate plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Investigating the Dosimetric Leaf Gap Correction Factor of Mobius3D Dose Calculation for Volumetric-modulated Arc Radiotherapy Plans.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Deep Learning for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance: Predicting Gamma Passing Rates for IMRT Based on Delivery Fluence Informed by log Files.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Independent treatment planning system (TPS) check with Mobius3D software, log files based quality assurance (QA) with MobiusFX, and phantom measurement-based QA with ArcCHECK were performed and cross verified for head-and-neck (17 patients), chest (16 patients), and abdominal (19 patients) cancer patients who underwent volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Dosimetric differences and percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) were evaluated and compared for this cross verification. For the dosimetric differences in planning target volume (PTV) coverage, there was no significant difference among TPS vs. Mobius3D, TPS vs. MobiusFX, and TPS vs. ArcCHECK. For the dosimetric differences in organs at risks (OARs), the number of metrics with an average dosimetric differences higher than ±3% for TPS vs Mobius3D, TPS vs MobiusFX, and TPS vs ArcCHECK were 1, 1, 7; 2, 1, 4; 1, 1, 5 for the patients with head-and-neck, abdomen, and chest cancer, respectively. The %GPs of global gamma indices for Mobius3D and MobiousFX were above 97%, while it ranged from 92% to 96% for ArcCHECK. The %GPs of individual volume-based gamma indices were around 98% for Mobius3D and MobiousFX, except for γPTV for chest and abdominal cancer (88.9% to 92%); while it ranged from 86% to 99% for ArcCHECK. In conclusion, some differences in dosimetric metrics and gamma passing rates were observed with ArcCHECK measurement-based QA in comparison with independent dosecheck and log files based QA. Care must be taken when considering replacing phantom measurement-based IMRT/VMAT QA.
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.