ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Error Detectability of Isodose Volumes as ROIs in Prostate Intensity-modulated RT QA.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimTo evaluate the quality of error detectability with a three-dimensional verification system using isodose volumes as regions of interest (ROIs) in quality assurance (QA) of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND
methodsTreatment plans with four types of intentional errors were created from the data of 20 patients with localized prostate cancer. These plans underwent QA using the three-dimensional verification system. The datasets of another 30 cases without inserted errors were assessed as controls. The ROIs used in the evaluations were those used in our conventional method (planning target volume, rectum, and bladder). The isodose volume method (5%, 50% and 95% isodose volume) and the error detection rates (measurement above the tolerance values, as set from the other 30 cases) were assessed and compared.
resultsThere was significantly higher multileaf collimator systematic closed error detectability with the isodose volume method compared to the conventional method (A-side 0.2 mm: p=0.005, A-side 0.35 mm: p=0.002, B-side 0.2 mm: p=0.001 and B-side 0.35 mm: p=0.010). There were no error types for which the error detection rate of the isodose volume method was lower than that of the conventional method.
conclusionThe isodose volume method was able to evaluate the irradiated ROIs that could be delineated, and improved error detectability. This method has the potential to provide a wider margin of safety in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.
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.