ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Assessing the sensitivity and suitability of a range of detectors for SIMT PSQA.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose accuracy evaluation of multi-leaf collimator modeling in single-isocenter multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- 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
- A multi-institutional EPID-based 3D dose reconstruction model in a virtual phantom for standardized patient QA, benchmarking and auditing for stereotactic radiosurgery.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Patient-specific quality assurance for extremely small field sizes using 3D in vivo dosimetry in fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases.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
- Quality and Dosimetric Accuracy of Linac-Based Single-Isocenter Treatment Plans for Four to Eighteen Brain Metastases.Cancers · 2025Article
- A Time-Series Approach for Machine Learning-Based Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of Radiosurgery Plans.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
- Assessing the sensitivity and suitability of a range of detectors for SIMT PSQA.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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSingle-isocenter multi-target intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SIMT) is an effective treatment for brain metastases with complex treatment plans and delivery optimization necessitating rigorous quality assurance. This work aims to assess five methods for quality assurance of SIMT treatment plans in terms of their suitability and sensitivity to delivery errors.
methodsSun Nuclear ArcCHECK and SRS MapCHECK, GafChromic EBT Radiochromic Film, machine log files, and Varian Portal Dosimetry were all used to measure 15 variations of a single SIMT plan. Variations of the original plan were created with Python. They comprised various degrees of systematic MLC offsets per leaf up to 2 mm, random per-leaf variations with differing minimum and maximum magnitudes, simulated collimator, and dose miscalibrations (MU scaling). The erroneous plans were re-imported into Eclipse and plan-quality degradation was assessed by comparing each plan variation to the original clinical plan in terms of the percentage of clinical goals passing relative to the original plan. Each erroneous plan could be then ranked by the plan-quality degradation percentage following recalculation in the TPS so that the effects of each variation could be correlated with γ pass rates and detector suitability. RESULTS &
conclusionsIt was found that 2%/1 mm is a good starting point for the ArcCHECK, Portal Dosimetry, and the SRS MapCHECK methods, respectively, and provides clinically relevant error detection sensitivity. Looser dose criteria of 5%/1 mm or 5%/1.5 mm are suitable for film dosimetry and log-file-based methods. The statistical methods explored can be expanded to other areas of patient-specific QA and detector assessment.
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.