ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2022
Photon beam modeling variations predict errors in IMRT dosimetry audits.
Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing reference plans for evaluating global clinical trials credentialing and PSQA systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric sensitivity of an enhanced leaf model (ELM) for individual versus averaged machines.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Experience with remote electronic portal imaging device-based dosimetric auditing for static and rotational intensity modulated radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- A radiotherapy community data-driven approach to determine which complexity metrics best predict the impact of atypical TPS beam modeling on clinical dose calculation accuracy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: To evaluate treatment planning system (TPS) beam modeling parameters as contributing factors to IMRT audit performance. MATERIALS &
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed IROC Houston phantom audit performance and concurrent beam modeling survey responses from 337 irradiations performed between August 2017 and November 2019. Irradiation results were grouped based on the reporting of typical or atypical beam modeling parameter survey responses (<10th or >90th percentile values), and compared for passing versus failing (>7% error) or "poor" (>5% error) irradiation status. Additionally, we assessed the impact on the planned dose distribution from variations in modeling parameter value. Finally, we estimated the overall impact of beam modeling parameter variance on dose calculations, based on reported community variations.
resultsUse of atypical modeling parameters were more frequently seen with failing phantom audit results (p = 0.01). Most pronounced was for Eclipse AAA users, where phantom irradiations with atypical values of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) showed a greater incidence of both poor-performing (p = 0.048) and failing phantom audits (p = 0.014); and in general, DLG value was correlated with dose calculation accuracy (r = 0.397, p < 0.001). Manipulating TPS parameters induced systematic changes in planned dose distributions which were consistent with prior observations of how failures manifest. Dose change estimations based on these dose calculations agreed well with true dosimetric errors identified.
conclusionAtypical TPS beam modeling parameters are associated with failing phantom audits. This is identified as an important factor contributing to the observed failing phantom results, and highlights the need for accurate beam modeling.
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.