ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Accuracy and reliability of a commercial treatment planning system in nontarget regions in modern prostate radiotherapy.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accuracy and reliability of a commercial treatment planning system in nontarget regions in modern prostate radiotherapy.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe currently available treatment planning systems (TPSs) are neither designed nor intended for accurate dose calculations in nontarget regions. The aim of this work is to quantify the accuracy and reliability of nontarget doses calculated by a commercially available TPS.
methodsNontarget doses calculated by the collapsed cone (CC) (v5.2) algorithm implemented in the RayStation (v6) TPS were compared to measured values. Different scenarios were investigated, from simple static fields to intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans. Deviations and confidence limits (CLs) were calculated between results of calculations and measurements-applying both local (δ) and global (Δ) normalization-for various points of interest (POIs). Results were based on a single-institution experience for one clinical test case (prostate) and evaluated against internationally accepted criteria.
resultsOverall, the TPS underestimated the nontarget dose by an average of -17.7% ± 25.3% for IMRT. Quantitatively similar results were obtained for VMAT (-17.6% ± 21.2%). POIs receiving < 5% of the prescription dose were significantly underestimated by the TPS (p-value < 0.05 for both IMRT and VMAT). Dose calculation accuracy was also determined by the contribution of secondary radiation, with measured doses for out-of-field POIs being significantly different from calculated values (p-value < 0.01 for both IMRT and VMAT). Although the CL
conclusionsBased on the currently available benchmarks our TPS is considered acceptable for clinical use, although the dose in some POIs was poorly predicted by the CC algorithm. Some areas were pointed out where TPSs and linear accelerator control systems can be improved.
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.