ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2022
Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Quality assurance of craniospinal irradiation in helical tomotherapy using a dose reconstruction tool based on leaf open time.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBased on a previous study on the feasibility of TomoEQA, an exit detector-based patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) method for helical tomotherapy, an in-depth clinical evaluation was conducted.
methodsData of one hundred patients were analyzed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment QA in comparison with the conventional phantom-based method. Additional investigations were also performed under unusual measurement conditions to validate the off-axis region. In addition to the clinical evaluation of TomoEQA, a statistical analysis was conducted to determine the plan parameters that affect the pass/failure results of pre-treatment QA.
resultsThe average and standard deviations of the gamma passing rate and point dose error for TomoEQA were comparable to those of the conventional QA method. For TomoEQA, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 96.32% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 3.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.55 to 97.09) and - 1.12% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.04; CI, - 1.32 to - 0.92), respectively. For the conventional QA method, the average values of the gamma passing rate and point dose error were 95.95% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 4.35; 95% confidence interval (CI), 95.10 to 96.80) and - 1.20% (standard deviation (1 sigma) = 1.61; CI, - 1.52 to - 0.88), respectively. Further experiments on the off-axis region demonstrated that TomoEQA can provide accurate results for 3D dose analysis, which is inherently difficult in the conventional QA method. Through a statistical analysis based on the results of TomoEQA, it was validated that the total fraction (Total Fx), monitor units, beam-on-time, leaf-of-time below 100 ms, and planning target volume diameter were statistically significant for the pass/failure of the pre-treatment QA results.
conclusionsTomoEQA is a clinically beneficial alternative to the conventional phantom-based QA method.
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.