ArticleMedical physics2024
Patient-specific quality assurance of dynamically-collimated proton therapy treatment plans.
Article in Medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a Dynamic Collimation System to Improve IMPT Dose Distributions and Maintain Treatment Efficiency.Cancers · 2026Article
- Assessing the delivery error detection sensitivity of a new 2D detector prototype for carbon ion PSQA measurements.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- The Cut-Sort-Group algorithm for efficient delivery of collimated step-and-shoot proton arc therapy.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe dynamic collimation system (DCS) provides energy layer-specific collimation for pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy using two pairs of orthogonal nickel trimmer blades. While excellent measurement-to-calculation agreement has been demonstrated for simple cube-shaped DCS-trimmed dose distributions, no comparison of measurement and dose calculation has been made for patient-specific treatment plans. PURPOSE: To validate a patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) process for DCS-trimmed PBS treatment plans and evaluate the agreement between measured and calculated dose distributions.
methodsThree intracranial patient cases were considered. Standard uncollimated PBS and DCS-collimated treatment plans were generated for each patient using the Astroid treatment planning system (TPS). Plans were recalculated in a water phantom and delivered at the Miami Cancer Institute (MCI) using an Ion Beam Applications (IBA) dedicated nozzle system and prototype DCS. Planar dose measurements were acquired at two depths within low-gradient regions of the target volume using an IBA MatriXX ion chamber array.
resultsMeasured and calculated dose distributions were compared using 2D gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm criteria and low dose threshold of 10% of the maximum dose. Median gamma pass rates across all plans and measurement depths were 99.0% (PBS) and 98.3% (DCS), with a minimum gamma pass rate of 88.5% (PBS) and 91.2% (DCS).
conclusionsThe PSQA process has been validated and experimentally verified for DCS-collimated PBS. Dosimetric agreement between the measured and calculated doses was demonstrated to be similar for DCS-collimated PBS to that achievable with noncollimated PBS.
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.