ArticleRadiology and oncology2021
Verification of an optimizer algorithm by the beam delivery evaluation of intensity-modulated arc therapy plans.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term clinical results of early-stage lung cancer patients treated with risk-adapted stereotactic body radiotherapy using LINAC or CyberKnife : A single-institution analysis of more than 400 cases.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025Article
- [Photon field junction for external beam radiotherapy of breast cancer involving axillary and supraclavicular lymph nodes].Magyar onkologia · 2024Article
- Plan quality and treatment efficiency assurance of two VMAT optimization for cervical cancer radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the case of dynamic radiotherapy plans, the fractionation schemes can have dosimetric effects. Our goal was to define the effect of the fraction dose on the plan quality and the beam delivery. MATERIALS AND
methodsTreatment plans were created for 5 early-stage lung cancer patients with different dose schedules. The planned total dose was 60 Gy, fraction dose was 2 Gy, 3 Gy, 5 Gy, 12 Gy and 20 Gy. Additionally renormalized plans were created by changing the prescribed fraction dose after optimization. The dosimetric parameters and the beam delivery parameters were collected to define the plan quality and the complexity of the treatment plans. The accuracy of dose delivery was verified with dose measurements using electronic portal imaging device (EPID).
resultsThe plan quality was independent from the used fractionation scheme. The fraction dose could be changed safely after the optimization, the delivery accuracy of the treatment plans with changed prescribed dose was not lower. According to EPID based measurements, the high fraction dose and dose rate caused the saturation of the detector, which lowered the gamma passing rate. The aperture complexity score, the gantry speed and the dose rate changes were not predicting factors for the gamma passing rate values.
conclusionsThe plan quality and the delivery accuracy are independent from the fraction dose, moreover the fraction dose can be changed safely after the dose optimization. The saturation effect of the EPID has to be considered when the action limits of the quality assurance system are defined.
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.