ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
An evaluation of quality assurance guidelines comparing the American College of Radiology and American Association of Physicists in Medicine task group 284 for magnetic resonance simulation.
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 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.
- Evolving concepts in margin strategies and adaptive radiotherapy for glioblastoma: A new future is on the horizon.Neuro-oncology · 2024Review
- Commissioning and implementing a Quality Assurance program for dedicated radiation oncology MRI scanners.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Patient-specific geometrical distortion corrections of MRI images improve dosimetric planning accuracy of vestibular schwannoma treated with gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- An evaluation of quality assurance guidelines comparing the American College of Radiology and American Association of Physicists in Medicine task group 284 for magnetic resonance simulation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate similarities and differences in quality assurance (QA) guidelines for a conventional diagnostic magnetic resonance (MR) system and a MR simulator (MR-SIM) system used for radiotherapy.
methodsIn this study, we compared QA testing guidelines from the American College of Radiology (ACR) MR Quality Control (MR QC) Manual to the QA section of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 284 report (TG-284). Differences and similarities were identified in testing scope, frequency, and tolerances. QA testing results from an ACR accredited clinical diagnostic MR system following ACR MR QC instructions were then evaluated using TG-284 tolerances.
resultsFive tests from the ACR MR QC Manual were not included in TG-284. Five new tests were identified for MR-SIM systems in TG-284 and pertained exclusively to the external laser positioning system of MR-SIM systems. "Low-contrast object detectability" (LCD), "table motion smoothness and accuracy," "transmitter gain," and "geometric accuracy" tests differed between the two QA guides. Tighter tolerances were required in TG-284 for "table motion smoothness and accuracy" and "low contrast object detectability." "Transmitter gain" tolerance was dependent on initial baseline measurements, and TG-284 required that geometric accuracy be tested over a larger field of view than the ACR testing method. All tests from the ACR MR QC Manual for a conventional MR system passed ACR tolerances. The T2-weighted image acquired with ACR sequences failed the 40-spoke requirement from TG-284, transmitter gain was at the 5% tolerance of TG-284, and geometric accuracy could not be evaluated because of required equipment differences. Table motion passed both TG-284 and ACR required tolerances.
conclusionOur study evaluated QA guidelines for an MR-SIM and demonstrated the additional QA requirements of a clinical diagnostic MR system to be used as an MR-SIM in radiotherapy as recommended by TG-284.
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.