ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Treatment plan prescreening for patient-specific quality assurance measurements using independent Monte Carlo dose calculations.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- A feasibility study of functional preservation in craniospinal irradiation with photon for pediatric medulloblastoma.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Commissioning and verification of a 3D Monte Carlo independent calculation software for O-ring linac systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Site-Specific Assessment of Statistical Process Control to Set Tolerance and Action Limits for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance in RapidArc Treatment Delivery.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2025Article
- A pathway away from measurement-based patient-specific QA: A review of contemporary quality assurance for external-beam radiotherapy sub-systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Longitudinal evaluation of workflow optimization in radiotherapy: A 4-year retrospective study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- A feasibility study of deep learning prediction model for VMAT patient-specific QA.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Adaptive assessment based on fractional CBCT images for cervical cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Clinical application of a GPU-accelerated monte carlo dose verification for cyberknife M6 with Iris collimator.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Sensitivity and specificity of secondary dose calculation for head and neck treatment plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Pretreatment patient-specific quality assurance prediction based on 1D complexity metrics and 3D planning dose: classification, gamma passing rates, and DVH metrics.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- Machine Description File-based Monte Carlo Simulation Modeling and its Validation Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy Commissioning Data.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Monte Carlo Modeling of Dynamic Tumor Tracking on a Gimbaled Linear Accelerator.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study proposes a method to identify plans that failed patient-specific quality assurance (QA) and attempts to establish a criterion to prescreen treatment plans for patient-specific QA measurements with independent Monte Carlo dose calculations. Materials and methods: Patient-specific QA results measured with an ArcCHECK diode array of 207 patients (head and neck: 25; thorax: 61; abdomen: 121) were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were treated with the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique and plans were optimized with a Pinnacle v16.2 treatment planning system using an analytical algorithm-based dose engine. Afterwards, phantom verification plans were designed and recalculated by an independent GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) dose engine, ArcherQA. Moreover, sensitivity and specificity analyzes of gamma passing rates between measurements and MC calculations were carried out to show the ability of MC to monitor failing plans (ArcCHECK 3%/3 mm,<90%), and attempt to determine the appropriate threshold and gamma passing rate criterion utilized by ArcherQA to prescreen treatment plans for ArcCHECK measurements. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was also utilized to characterize the performance of different gamma passing rate criterion used by ArcherQA. Results: The thresholds for 100% sensitivity to detect plans that failed patient-specific QA by independent calculation were 97.0%, 95.4%, and 91.0% for criterion 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, respectively, which corresponded to specificities of 0.720, 0.528, and 0.585, respectively. It was shown that the 3%/3 mm criterion with 97% threshold for ArcherQA demonstrated perfect sensitivity and the highest specificity compared with other criteria, which may be suitable for prescreening treatment plans treated with the investigated machine to implement measurement-based patient-specific QA of patient plans. In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) calculated from ROC analysis for criterion 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm used by ArcherQA were 0.948, 0.924, and 0.929, respectively. Conclusions: Independent dose calculation with the MC-based program ArcherQA has potential as a prescreen treatment for measurement-based patient-specific QA. AUC values (>0.9) showed excellent classification accuracy for monitoring failing plans with independent MC calculations.
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.