Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34760314›Full record

ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2021

Evaluation of the ability of three commercially available dosimeters to detect systematic delivery errors in step-and-shoot IMRT plans.

Alison Gray, Omemh Bawazeer, Sankar Arumugam, Philip Vial, Joseph Descallar, David Thwaites, Lois Holloway

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of pre-treatment and in-vivo dosimetry for advanced radiotherapy of prostate cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022
    Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Alison GrayLiverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Omemh BawazeerPhysics Department, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
Sankar ArumugamLiverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Philip VialLiverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Joseph DescallarIngham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
David ThwaitesInstitute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lois HollowayLiverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
South Western Sydney Local Health District · AUIngham Institute · AUUmm al-Qura University · SAUniversity of Sydney · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited data on error detectability for step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) plans, despite significant work on dynamic methods. However, sIMRT treatments have an ongoing role in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate variations in the sensitivity of three patient-specific quality assurance (QA) devices to systematic delivery errors in sIMRT plans. MATERIALS AND

methodsFour clinical sIMRT plans (prostate and head and neck) were edited to introduce errors in: Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) position (increasing field size, leaf pairs offset (1-3 mm) in opposite directions; and field shift, all leaves offset (1-3 mm) in one direction); collimator rotation (1-3 degrees) and gantry rotation (0.5-2 degrees). The total dose for each plan was measured using an ArcCHECK diode array. Each field, excluding those with gantry offsets, was also measured using an Electronic Portal Imager and a MatriXX Evolution 2D ionisation chamber array. 132 plans (858 fields) were delivered, producing 572 measured dose distributions. Measured doses were compared to calculated doses for the no-error plan using Gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm criteria (1716 analyses).

resultsGenerally, pass rates decreased with increasing errors and/or stricter gamma criteria. Pass rate variations with detector and plan type were also observed. For a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria, none of the devices could reliably detect 1 mm MLC position errors or 1 degree collimator rotation errors.

conclusionsThis work has highlighted the need to adapt QA based on treatment plan type and the need for detector specific assessment criteria to detect clinically significant errors.

Indexed as

error detectionIMRTpatient specific QAstep-and-shoot

Identifiers

PMID34760314
PMCPMC8575358
OpenAlexW3195670654

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.