ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
MR-linac MLC positioning QA by digitally stitching dual double-exposed films.
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.
- MR-linac MLC positioning QA by digitally stitching dual double-exposed films.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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe picket fence (PF) test is highly recommended for multi-leaf collimator (MLC) quality assurance. However, since the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) on the Elekta Unity only covers a small area, it is not feasible to perform the PF test for the entire MLC. Here, we propose a technique for the PF test by stitching two double-exposed films.
methodsTwo EBT3 films were used to encompass the entire MLC, with each one covering one half of the area. Two fields were employed to apply double exposure: a PF pattern consisting of 11 2 mm wide pickets and a 2.84 cm x 22 cm open field. The edges of the open field defined by the diaphragms were used to correct film rotation as well as align them horizontally. The PF pattern was also measured with the EPID where the pickets were used to align the films vertically. Individual leaf positions were detected on the merged film for quantitative analysis. Various MLC positioning errors were introduced to evaluate the technique's sensitivity.
resultsThe merged films covered 72 leaf pairs properly (four leaf pairs on both sides were outside the treatment couch). With the EPID, the leaf positioning accuracy was -0.02 ± 0.07 mm (maximum: 0.29 mm) and the picket width variation was 0.00 ± 0.03 mm (maximum: 0.11 mm); with the films, the position accuracy and width variation were -0.03 ± 0.13 mm (maximum: 0.80 mm) and 0.00 ± 0.13 mm (maximum: 0.74 mm), respectively. The EPID was able to detect errors of 0.5 mm or above with submillimeter accuracy; the films were only able to detect errors > 1.0 mm.
conclusionWe developed a quantitative technique for the PF test on the Elekta Unity. The merged films covered nearly the entire MLC leaf banks. The technique exhibited clinically acceptable accuracy and sensitivity to MLC positioning errors.
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.