ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022
Errors detected during physics plan review for external beam radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. 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.
- Dosimetric benefits of half-field arc in prostate cancer treatment.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- A method for empirically validating FMEA RPN scores in a radiation oncology clinic using physics QC data.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- ACPSEM position paper: pre-treatment patient specific plan checks and quality assurance in radiation oncology.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
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
Background and purpose: Risk management in radiotherapy is of high importance. There is not much data published on errors occurring in the treatment planning process of external beam techniques. The aim of this study was to investigate errors occurring during physics plan review in external beam radiotherapy. Materials and methods: Over a period of 14 months errors observed during the physical review process are reported. The errors were grouped and evaluated regarding treatment machine, technique, and treatment site. In addition, a correlation between frequency of errors and staff shortage was analyzed. Results: Subgroups of grave errors (g-errors) and slight errors (s-errors) were defined to consider the different impact on the patient and clinical workflow of the errors. In 1056 plans reviewed, 110 errors (41 g-errors, 69 s-errors) were detected. The most common g-errors and s-errors were "Wrong gantry angle at setup field" (n = 19) and "Wrong field label" (n = 24), respectively. A correlation of number of errors and treatment machine, technique, or anatomical site could not be found. No correlation between staff shortage and number of errors was observed. Conclusions: The process of reviewing treatment plans is a relevant topic to consider in risk analysis of the radiotherapy workflow. The review process could be improved by enhancements in the treatment planning systems, use of digital dose prescription, and treatment planning templates.
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.