ArticleCureus2022
Gamma Index Analysis as a Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Tool for High-Precision Radiotherapy: A Clinical Perspective of Single Institute Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Gamma Index Sensitivity to Selected Linear Accelerator Mechanical Errors Using Various Dosimetric Systems.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the trade-off between plan complexity, dosimetric accuracy, and treatment efficiency: Role of aperture shape controller settings in HyperArc for intracranial oligometastases.Precision radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Feasibility Study of Using Kv-Cone Beam CT Images as Patient Specific Quality Assurance Tool.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Impact of iso-dose levels on pre-treatment quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc therapy.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of radiation treatment plan quality in head and neck cancer: a comparative analysis of RapidArc technique with flattening filter and flattening filter-free photon beams.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- A comprehensive site-specific analysis of patient-specific quality assurance based on dose volume histogram of RapidArc treatment delivery.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Article
- Comparative Study of Fluence Distribution and Point Dose Using Arc-check and DeltaJournal of medical physicsArticle
- Evaluation of Dosimetric Efficacy of RapidArc and Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy Techniques in Head-and-Neck Cancers.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) by gamma (γ) analysis is an important component of high-precision radiotherapy. It is important to standardize institute-specific protocol. In this study, we describe our institutional experience of patient-specific QA for high-precision radiotherapy from a clinical perspective. Methods The planning data of 56 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were included. γ index analysis was done using Octavius 4D IMRT QA phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) using 3 mm/3% criteria. Local, global, and volumetric gammas were calculated and compared. The relationship of γ index in the transverse, coronal, and sagittal direction and anatomical region of treatment was explored. Results Global three-dimensional (3D) γ indices in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse axes were 96.73 ± 2.35, 95.66 ± 3.01, and 93.36 ± 4.87 (p < 0.05). The average local two-dimensional (2D) γ index was 78.23 ± 5.44 and the global γ index was 92.41 ± 2.41 (p < 0.005). The average local 3D γ index was 84.99 ± 4.24 and the global 3D γ index was 95.25 ± 1.72 (p < 0.005, paired t-test). The average local volumetric γ index was 84.29 ± 4.73 and the global volumetric γ index was 95.96 ± 2.08 (p < 0.005). 3D global gamma index was significantly different in different anatomical regions (p < 0.05). Conclusion Our study shows that γ index analysis is a useful parameter for routine clinical IMRT QA. The choice of type of γ index depends on the context of use and degree of stringency in measurement. Average 2D and 3D global γ were different in anatomical regions. The average 3D γ index was significantly different in axes. No difference was observed with techniques of IMRT/VMAT. Localization of failed points in CT anatomy can be advantageous for clinical decision-making.
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.