ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Is it necessary to perform measurement-based patient-specific quality assurance for online adaptive radiotherapy with Elekta Unity MR-Linac?
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Adaptive Radiotherapy in the Era of Image Guidance and Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Article
- 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
- Feasibility of Monte Carlo-based patient-specific quality assurance in 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiotherapy: a multi-institutional study.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- A feasibility study of deep learning prediction model for VMAT patient-specific QA.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Ultra-fast, one-click radiotherapy treatment planning outside a treatment planning system.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Is it necessary to perform measurement-based patient-specific quality assurance for online adaptive radiotherapy with Elekta Unity MR-Linac?Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy Workflow for Long, Continuous Planning Target Volumes.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the necessity of measurement-based patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for online adaptive radiotherapy by analyzing measurement-based PSQA results and calculation-based 3D independent dose verification results with Elekta Unity MR-Linac. There are two workflows for Elekta Unity enabled in the treatment planning system: adapt to position (ATP) and adapt to shape (ATS). ATP plans are those which have relatively slighter shifts from reference plans by adjusting beam shapes or weights, whereas ATS plans are the new plans optimized from the beginning with probable re-contouring targets and organs-at-risk. PSQA gamma passing rates were measured using an MR-compatible ArcCHECK diode array for 78 reference plans and corresponding 208 adaptive plans (129 ATP plans and 79 ATS plans) of Elekta Unity. Subsequently, the relationships between ATP, or ATS plans and reference plans were evaluated separately. The Pearson's r correlation coefficients between ATP or ATS adaptive plans and corresponding reference plans were also characterized using regression analysis. Moreover, the Bland-Altman plot method was used to describe the agreement of PSQA results between ATP or ATS adaptive plans and reference plans. Additionally, Monte Carlo-based independent dose verification software ArcherQA was used to perform secondary dose check for adaptive plans. For ArcCHECK measurements, the average gamma passing rates (ArcCHECK vs. TPS) of PSQA (3%/2 mm criterion) were 99.51% ± 0.88% and 99.43% ± 0.54% for ATP and ATS plans, respectively, which were higher than the corresponding reference plans 99.34% ± 1.04% (p < 0.05) and 99.20% ± 0.71% (p < 0.05), respectively. The Pearson's r correlation coefficients were 0.720 between ATP and reference plans and 0.300 between ATS and reference plans with ArcCHECK, respectively. Furthermore, >95% of data points of differences between both ATP and ATS plans and reference plans were within ±2σ (standard deviation) of the mean difference between adaptive and reference plans with ArcCHECK measurements. With ArcherQA calculation, the average gamma passing rates (ArcherQA vs. TPS) were 98.23% ± 1.64% and 98.15% ± 1.07% for ATP and ATS adaptive plans, separately. It might be unnecessary to perform measurement-based PSQA for both ATP and ATS adaptive plans for Unity if the gamma passing rates of both measurements of corresponding reference plans and independent dose verification of adaptive plans have high gamma passing rates. Periodic machine QA and verification of adaptive plans were recommended to ensure treatment safety.
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.