ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Is it still necessary to perform measured based pre-treatment patient-specific QA for SRS HyperArc treatments?
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A survey of practice patterns for patient-specific quality assurance on behalf of the ESTRO dosimetry & quality assurance focus group.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Implementing log file-based patient-specific QA for VMAT plans: A comparative study of MobiusFX and measurement-based approaches.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- 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
- Reporting Clinical Results of EPID-Based Patient-Specific Quality Assurance for Brain Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Radiation Therapy: Demonstrating the Feasibility of Same-Day Stereotactic Radiosurgery via HyperArc Delivery.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- ACPSEM position paper: pre-treatment patient specific plan checks and quality assurance in radiation oncology.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Is it still necessary to perform measured based pre-treatment patient-specific QA for SRS HyperArc treatments?Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Mobius3D system was validated as a modern secondary check dosimetry system. In particular, our objective has been to assess the suitability of the M3D as pre-treatment patient-specific Quality Assurance (QA) tool for Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) HyperArc (HA) treatments. We aimed to determine whether Mobius3D could safely replace the measurements-based patient-specific QA for this type of treatment.
methods30 SRS HA treatment plans for brain were selected. The dose distributions, calculated by Mobius and our routinely used algorithm (AcurosXB v.15.6), were compared using gamma analysis index and DVH parameters based on the patient's CT dataset. All 30 plans were then delivered across the ionization chamber in a homogeneous phantom and the measured dose was compared with both M3D and TPS calculated one. The plans were delivered and verified in terms of PSQA using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) with Portal Dosimetry (PD) and myQA SRS (IBA Dosimetry) detector. Plans that achieved a global gamma passing rate (GPR) ≥ 97% based on 2%/2 mm criteria, with both Mobius3D and the conventional methods were evaluated acceptable. Finally, we assessed the capability of the M3D system to detect errors related to the position of the Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) in comparison to the analyzed measurement-based systems.
resultsNo relevant differences were observed in the comparison between the dose calculated on the CT-dataset by M3D and the TPS. Observed discrepancies are imputable to different used algorithms, but no discrepancies related to goodness of plans have been found. Average differences between calculated (M3D and TPS) vs measured dose with ionization chamber were 2.5% (from 0.41% to 3.2%) and 1.81% (from 0.66% to 2.65%), for M3D and TPS, respectively. All plans passed with a gamma passing rate > 97% using conventional PSQA methods with a gamma criterion of 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance-to-agreement. The average gamma passing rate for the M3D system was determined to be 99.4% (from 97.3% to 100%). Results from this study also demonstrated Mobius has better error detectability than conventional measurement-based systems.
conclusionOur study shows Mobius3D could be a suitable alternative to conventional measured based QA methods for SRS HyperArc treatments.
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.