Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35429117›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Determination of the electronic portal imaging device pixel-sensitivity-map for quality assurance applications. Part 2: Photon beam dependence.

Michael Paul Barnes, Baozhou Sun, Brad Michael Oborn, Bishnu Lamichhane, Stuart Szwec, Matthew Schmidt, Bin Cai, Frederick Menk, Peter Greer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael Paul BarnesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Hospital Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Baozhou SunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Brad Michael ObornCentre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Bishnu LamichhaneSchool of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Stuart SzwecSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Matthew SchmidtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Bin CaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Frederick MenkSchool of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Peter GreerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Hospital Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUWashington University in St. Louis · USCalvary Mater Newcastle Hospital · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe EPID PSM is a useful EPID calibration method for QA applications. The dependence of the EPID PSM on the photon beam used to acquire it has been investigated in this study for the four available PSM methods. The aim is to inform upon the viability of applying a single PSM for all available photon beams to simplify PSM implementation and maintenance.

methodsFour methods of PSM determination were each measured once in a single session on a single TrueBeam ® STx linac using 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV Flattening-Filter-Free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF photon beams. The resultant PSM was assessed for both intra- and inter-method beam dependence via comparison between PSM of the same method compared to the 6 MV PSM and via comparison between PSM of the same beam with the corresponding Monte Carlo PSM. Comparisons were performed via 2D percentage deviation plots with associated histograms, 1D crossplane profiles, and via mean, median, and standard deviation percentage deviation statistics. Generated beam-response was compared qualitatively via 1D crossplane profile comparison and quantitatively via symmetry assessment with comparison to the IC profiler device.

resultsThe Varian method provided the most consistent PSM with varying photon beam, with median percent deviation from the 6 MV PSM within 0.14% for all other beams. Qualitatively, each method provided similar beam-response profiles. The measured beam-response symmetry agreed to within 0.2% between the Calvary Mater Newcastle (CMN) method and IC profiler, but agreement reduced to within 0.9% and 2.2% for the Varian and WashU methods. PSM percent deviation with Monte Carlo PSM was within 0.75% for all methods and beams.

conclusionResults suggest that the PSM may be independent of photon beam to clinically relevant levels. The Varian method of PSM determination introduces the least beam dependence into the measured PSM.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedElectronicsHumansParticle AcceleratorsPhantoms, ImagingPhotonsRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageEPID dosimetrypixel-sensitivity-mapquality assurance

Identifiers

PMID35429117
PMCPMC9195019
OpenAlexW4223954693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.