ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
Dosimetric Validation of Treatment Planning System for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Using AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.b.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the precision of dose calculations for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) using megavoltage (MV) photon beams, we validated the accuracy of two algorithms: AUROS XB and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA). This validation will encompass both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free beam (FFF) modes, using AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG 5b). MATERIALS AND
methodsVMAT validation tests were generated for 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF beams using the AAA and AXB algorithms in the Eclipse V.15.1 treatment planning system (TPS). Corresponding measurements were performed on a linear accelerator using a diode detector and a radiation field analyzer. Point dose (PD) and in-vivo measurements were conducted using an A1SL ion chamber and (TLD) from Thermofisher, respectively. The Rando Phantom was employed for end-to-end (E2E) tests.
resultsThe mean difference (MD) between the TPS-calculated values and the measured values for the PDD and output factors were within 1% and 0.5%, respectively, for both 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF. In the TG 119 sets, the MD for PD with both AAA and AXB was <0.9%. For the TG 244 sets, the minimum, maximum, and mean deviations in PD for both 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF beams were 0.3%, 1.4% and 0.8% respectively. In the E2E test, using the Rando Phantom, the MD between the TLD dose and the TPS dose was within 0.08% for both 6 MV FF (p=1.0) and 6 MV FFF (0.018) beams.
conclusionThe accuracy of the TPS and its algorithms (AAA and AXB) has been successfully validated. The recommended tests included in the VMAT/IMRT validation section proved invaluable for verifying the PDD, output factors, and the feasibility of complex clinical cases. E2E tests were instrumental in validating the entire workflow from CT simulation to treatment delivery.
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.