ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Commissioning and implementing a Quality Assurance program for dedicated radiation oncology MRI scanners.
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 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.
- Commissioning and implementing a Quality Assurance program for dedicated radiation oncology MRI scanners.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeACR and AAPM task group's guidelines addressing commissioning for dedicated MR simulators were recently published. The goal of the current paper is to present the authors' 2-year experience regarding the commissioning and introduction of a QA program based on these guidelines and an associated automated workflow.
methodsAll mandatory commissioning tests suggested by AAPM report 284 were performed and results are reported for two MRI scanners (MAGNETOM Sola and Aera). Visual inspection, vendor clinical or service platform, third-party software, or in-house python-based code were used. Automated QA and data analysis was performed via vendor, in-house or third-party software. QATrack+ was used for QA data logging and storage. 3D geometric distortion, B
resultsContrasting with AAPM report 284 recommendations, homogeneity and RF tests were performed monthly. The QA program allowed us to detect major failures over time (shimming, gradient calibration and RF interference). Automated QA, data analysis, and logging allowed fast ACR analysis daily and monthly QA to be performed in 3 h. On the Sola, the average distortion is 1 mm for imaging radii of 250 mm or less. For radii of up to 200 mm, the maximum, average (standard deviation) distortion is 1.2 and 0.4 mm (0.3 mm). Aera values are roughly double the Sola for radii up to 200 mm. EPI geometric distortion, ghosting ratio, and long-term stability were found to be under the maximum recommended values. Parallel imaging SNR ratio was stable and close to the theoretical value (ideal g-factor). No major failures were detected during commissioning.
conclusionAn automated workflow and enhanced QA program allowed to automatically track machine and environmental changes over time and to detect periodic failures and errors that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. The Sola is more geometrically accurate, with a more homogenous B
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.