ArticleBJR case reports2024
A rare instance of latent systematic error in volumetric-modulated arc therapy with field-extended multi-isocentre irradiation leading to a serious dose-delivery accident.
Article in BJR case reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with field-extended multi-isocentre irradiation (VMAT-FEMII) is an effective irradiation technique, particularly for large planning target volumes in the craniocaudal direction. A variety of treatment planning techniques have been reported to reduce the dosimetric impact. However, there is no guarantee that unexpected latent systematic errors would not occur. Herein, we report the experience with a rare case that could have led to a serious VMAT-FEMII-related accident. A patient with uterine cervical carcinoma was scheduled for VMAT-FEMII to the whole pelvis and the para-aortic lymph node region. A combination of the two sets of field groups with different isocentres was planned: one to cover the para-aortic lymph nodes and the other to cover the whole pelvis. Measurements based on the pretreatment dose delivery quality assurance (QA) revealed an unexpected overdose of >20% in the field overlap region. This overdose phenomenon is not reflected in the calculated dose distribution in the radiotherapy treatment planning system. Therefore, the plan was altered; a homogeneous dose distribution inside the dose junction was achieved. Several analyses were performed to elucidate the overdosing phenomenon. However, no conclusive answer was found to why non-reflection at the calculated dose distribution was found. The limitations to VMAT-FEMII are primarily related to systematic errors in the positional setup from patient-derived and/or mechanical sources. However, this report highlights a rare case of overdosing caused by inverse optimization and dose calculation. We recommend checking the aperture status of the jaw and multi-leaf collimator at each control point of the treatment plan and using a high-resolution image measurement system on a VMAT-FEMII QA to confirm the dose junction status.
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.