Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38900228›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024

Unifying gamma passing rates in patient-specific QA for VMAT lung cancer treatment based on data assimilation.

Tomohiro Ono, Takanori Adachi, Hideaki Hirashima, Hiraku Iramina, Noriko Kishi, Yukinori Matsuo, Mitsuhiro Nakamura, Takashi Mizowaki

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tomohiro OnoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shiga General Hospital, 5-4-30 Moriyama, Moriyama-shi, Shiga, 524-8524, Japan. tono@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7398-028X
Takanori AdachiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Hideaki HirashimaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Hiraku IraminaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Noriko KishiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Yukinori MatsuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Mitsuhiro NakamuraDepartment of Advanced Medical Physics, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Takashi MizowakiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-applied Therapy, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.

Funding

Casio Science Promotion Foundation 41-38Chubei Itoh foundation 2021Kaken 21K15782
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to identify systematic errors in measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) methods for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on lung cancer and to standardize the gamma passing rate (GPR) by considering systematic errors during data assimilation. This study included 150 patients with lung cancer who underwent VMAT. VMAT plans were generated using a collapsed-cone algorithm. For measurement-based PSQA, ArcCHECK was employed. For calculation-based PSQA, Acuros XB was used to recalculate the plans. In prediction-based PSQA, GPR was forecasted using a previously developed GPR prediction model. The representative GPR value was estimated using the least-squares method from the three PSQA methods for each original plan. The unified GPR was computed by adjusting the original GPR to account for systematic errors. The range of limits of agreement (LoA) were assessed for the original and unified GPRs based on the representative GPR using Bland-Altman plots. For GPR (3%/2 mm), original GPRs were 94.4 ± 3.5%, 98.6 ± 2.2% and 93.3 ± 3.4% for measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based PSQA methods and the representative GPR was 95.5 ± 2.0%. Unified GPRs were 95.3 ± 2.8%, 95.4 ± 3.5% and 95.4 ± 3.1% for measurement-, calculation-, and prediction-based PSQA methods, respectively. The range of LoA decreased from 12.8% for the original GPR to 9.5% for the unified GPR across all three PSQA methods. The study evaluated unified GPRs that corrected for systematic errors. Proposing unified criteria for PSQA can enhance safety regardless of the methods used.

Indexed as

Gamma RaysLung NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedCalculation-basedData assimilationMeasurement-basedPatient-specific QAPrediction-based

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.