Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39031891›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

A novel EPID-based MLC QA method with log files achieving submillimeter accuracy.

Chenlu Liu, Binbing Wang, Xue Bai, Xiaolong Cheng, Xiaotong Wang, Xiaohua Yang, Guoping Shan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 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. Article
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

7 authors.

Chenlu LiuSchool of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, PR China.
Binbing WangDepartment of Radiation Physics, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, PR China.
Xue BaiDepartment of Radiation Physics, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, PR China.
Xiaolong ChengDepartment of Radiation Physics, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, PR China.
Xiaotong WangDepartment of Radiation Physics, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, PR China.
Xiaohua YangSchool of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, PR China.
Guoping ShanDepartment of Radiation Physics, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou Institute of Medicine (HIM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, PR China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 62003157Research Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province 21B0434Research Foundation of Education Bureau of Hunan Province 22C0223State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Reactor Systems Design for Open Projects SQ-KFKT-24-2021-006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop an electronic portal imaging device-based multi-leaf collimator calibration procedure using log files. Picket fence fields with 2-14 mm nominal strip widths were performed and normalized by open field. Normalized pixel intensity profiles along the direction of leaf motion for each leaf pair were taken. Three independent algorithms and an integration method derived from them were developed according to the valley value, valley area, full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of the profile, and the abutment width of the leaf pairs obtained from the log files. Three data processing schemes (Scheme A, Scheme B, and Scheme C) were performed based on different data processing methods. To test the usefulness and robustness of the algorithm, the known leaf position errors along the direction of perpendicular leaf motion via the treatment planning system were introduced in the picket fence field with nominal 5, 8, and 11 mm. Algorithm tests were performed every 2 weeks over 4 months. According to the log files, about 17.628% and 1.060% of the leaves had position errors beyond ± 0.1 and ± 0.2 mm, respectively. The absolute position errors of the algorithm tests for different data schemes were 0.062 ± 0.067 (Scheme A), 0.041 ± 0.045 (Scheme B), and 0.037 ± 0.043 (Scheme C). The absolute position errors of the algorithms developed by Scheme C were 0.054 ± 0.063 (valley depth method), 0.040 ± 0.038 (valley area method), 0.031 ± 0.031 (FWHM method), and 0.021 ± 0.024 (integrated method). For the efficiency and robustness test of the algorithm, the absolute position errors of the integration method of Scheme C were 0.020 ± 0.024 (5 mm), 0.024 ± 0.026 (8 mm), and 0.018 ± 0.024 (11 mm). Different data processing schemes could affect the accuracy of the developed algorithms. The integration method could integrate the benefits of each algorithm, which improved the level of robustness and accuracy of the algorithm. The integration method can perform multi-leaf collimator (MLC) quality assurance with an accuracy of 0.1 mm. This method is simple, effective, robust, quantitative, and can detect a wide range of MLC leaf position errors.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsParticle AcceleratorsQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedCalibrationHumansNeoplasmsEPIDfull‐width half‐maximumMLC calibrationMLC QA

Identifiers

PMID39031891
PMCPMC11302811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.