ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Is a weekly qualitative picket fence test sufficient? A proposed alternate EPID-based weekly MLC QA program.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.b: Linear accelerator performance tests.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Guideline
- Assessing quality assurance of multi-leaf collimator using the structural similarity index.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Is a weekly qualitative picket fence test sufficient? A proposed alternate EPID-based weekly MLC QA program.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Curve-fitting Techniques for Electronic Portal Imaging Device-based Multileaf Collimator Picket Fence Analysis.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWell-designed routine multileaf collimator (MLC) quality assurance (QA) is important to assure external-beam radiation treatment delivery accuracy. This study evaluates the clinical necessity of a comprehensive weekly (C-Weekly) MLC QA program compared to the American Association of Physics in Medicinerecommended weekly picket fence test (PF-Weekly), based on our seven-year experience with weekly MLC QA.
methodsThe C-Weekly MLC QA program used in this study includes 5 tests to analyze: (1) absolute MLC leaf position; (2) interdigitation MLC leaf position; (3) picket fence MLC leaf positions at static gantry angle; (4) minimum leaf-gap setting; and (5) volumetric-modulated arc therapy delivery. A total of 20,226 QA images from 16,855 tests (3,371 tests × 5) for 11 linacs at 5 photon clinical sites from May 2014 to June 2021 were analyzed. Failure mode and effects analysis was performed with 5 failure modes related to the 5 tests. For each failure mode, a risk probability number (RPN) was calculated for a C-Weekly and a PF-Weekly MLC QA program. The probability of occurrence was evaluated from statistical analyses of the C-Weekly MLC QA.
resultsThe total number of failures for these 16,855 tests was 143 (0.9%): 39 (27.3%) for absolute MLC leaf position, 13 (9.1%) for interdigitation position, 9 (6.3%) for static gantry picket fence, 2 (1.4%) for minimum leaf-gap setting, and 80 (55.9%) for VMAT delivery. RPN scores for PF-Weekly MLC QA ranged from 60 to 192 and from 48 to 96 for C-Weekly MLC QA.
conclusionRPNs for the 5 failure modes of MLC QA tests were quantitatively determined and analyzed. A comprehensive weekly MLC QA is imperative to lower the RPNs of the 5 failure modes to the desired level (<125); those from the PF-Weekly MLC QA program were found to be higher (>125). This supports the clinical necessity for comprehensive weekly MLC QA.
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.