ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Online adaptive radiotherapy and dose delivery accuracy: A retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. 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.
- Adaptive Radiotherapy in the Era of Image Guidance and Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- A global bibliometric and visualization study of the adaptive radiotherapy research landscape.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Online adaptive radiotherapy and dose delivery accuracy: A retrospective analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWith online adaptive radiotherapy (ART), patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) testing cannot be performed prior to delivery of the adapted treatment plan. Consequently, the dose delivery accuracy of adapted plans (i.e., the ability of the system to interpret and deliver the treatment as planned) are not initially verified. We investigated the variation in dose delivery accuracy of ART on the MRIdian 0.35 T MR-linac (Viewray Inc., Oakwood, USA) between initial plans and their respective adapted plans, by analyzing PSQA results.
methodsWe considered the two main digestive localizations treated with ART (liver and pancreas). A total of 124 PSQA results acquired with the ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, USA) multidetector system were analyzed. PSQA result variations between the initial plans and their respective adapted plans were statistically investigated and compared with the variation in MU number.
resultsFor the liver, limited deterioration in PSQA results was observed, and was within the limits of clinical tolerance (Initial = 98.2%, Adapted = 98.2%, p = 0.4503). For pancreas plans, only a few significant deteriorations extending beyond the limits of clinical tolerance were observed and were due to specific, complex anatomical configurations (Initial = 97.3%, Adapted = 96.5%, p = 0.0721). In parallel, we observed an influence of the increase in MU number on the PSQA results.
conclusionWe show that the dose delivery accuracy of adapted plans, in terms of PSQA results, is preserved in ART processes on the 0.35 T MR-linac. Respecting good practices, and minimizing the increase in MU number can help to preserve the accuracy of delivery of adapted plans as compared to their respective initial plans.
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.