Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33271351›Full record

ArticlePractical radiation oncology

Failure Modes in IROC Photon Liver Phantom Irradiations.

Paige A Taylor, Paola E Alvarez, Hunter Mehrens, David S Followill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Practical radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Adoption of respiratory motion management in radiation therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Paige A TaylorIROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Paola E AlvarezIROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: palvarez@mdanderson.org.
Hunter MehrensIROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
David S FollowillIROC Houston Quality Assurance Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

Funding

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
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA214526NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOur purpose was to analyze and classify the patterns of failure for irradiations of the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core photon liver phantom. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core's anthropomorphic liver phantom simulates multitarget liver disease with respiratory motion. Two hundred forty-nine liver phantom results from 2013 to 2019 were analyzed. Phantom irradiations that failed were categorized by the error attributed to the failure. Phantom results were also compared by demographic data, such as machine type, treatment planning system, motion management technique, number of isocenters, and whether the phantom was a first time or repeat irradiation.

resultsThe failure rate for the liver phantom was 27%. From the 68 irradiations that did not pass, 5 failure modes were identified. The most common failure mode was localization errors in the direction of motion, with over 50% of failures attributed to this mode. The second-most common failure mode was systematic dose errors. The internal target volume technique performed worse than other motion management techniques. Failure modes were different by the number of isocenters used, with multi-isocenter irradiations having more failure modes in a single phantom irradiation.

conclusionsMotion management techniques and proper alignment of moving targets play a large role in the successful irradiation of the liver phantom. These errors should be examined to ensure accurate patient treatment for liver disease or other sites where multiple moving targets are present.

Indexed as

Radiation OncologyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedHumansLiverPhantoms, ImagingRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID33271351
PMCPMC8102375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.