ArticleMedical physics2024
An international film dosimetry intercomparison to establish a multi-center audit framework.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization of a novel plastic scintillation detector for in vivo electron dosimetry.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A multi-institutional EPID-based 3D dose reconstruction model in a virtual phantom for standardized patient QA, benchmarking and auditing for stereotactic radiosurgery.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- A novel audit methodology to improve detection of planning and delivery errors in passive motion management.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Quantifying uncertainty in calibration and clinical application of EBT-4 Gafchromic film dosimetry.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Design and validation of a novel dosimetry phantom for motion management audits.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- An international film dosimetry intercomparison to establish a multi-center audit framework.Medical physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2021, a Technical Meeting was hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) where it was recommended that a standardized method for assessing the accuracy of film dose calculations should be established. PURPOSE: To design an audit that evaluates the accuracy of film dosimetry processes. To propose a framework for identifying out-of-tolerance results and to perform an international pilot study to test the audit design.
methodsSix members of an international Dosimetry Audit Network (DAN) developed an audit for radiochromic film dosimetry. A single host center provided the materials to each participating DAN member to conduct the audits. Materials included: (1) a set of two irradiated audit films (10 Sq: 10 cm × 10 cm, 15 Sq: 15 cm × 15 cm), (2) a reference calibration film set, and (3) a blank sheet of film. The participants were blinded to the dose and tasked with producing dose maps using their standard film dosimetry process. Average Region-Of-Interest (ROI: 2 cm × 2 cm) dose was measured from the dose maps and compared to the known dose. In the audit, all participants used their local scanning and software protocols. Film calibration was performed in two distinct ways: (1) using a calibration film set which was provided by the host center and (2) using a calibration film set which was locally irradiated. Several variations of the audit were also performed to examine how scanning and software processing can affect film dosimetry results. In the first variation of the audit (VariantA), a set of film scans was processed using five different software solutions. In the second variation of the audit (VariantB), all films were scanned on the same scanner and processed using two in-house software solutions.
resultsTaking one film scan from each participant, the standard deviations (1σ) (SD) in the dose returned from the host calibration and returned from the local calibration were ±7.2% and ±6.5% respectively, with variations from -12.4% to 12.9% of the known dose. The larger dose variations in the data set were attributed to the corrections applied for variations in scanner brightness during processing and incorrectly assigned calibration doses. When the raw image data set was processed by an expert user of each software solution (VariantA) the SDs were ±2.7% and ±3.7% for in-house and vendor-based software, respectively. When the films were scanned on a single scanner and processed with the two in-house software solutions (VariantB) the results had a SD of ±2.3%.
conclusionsAn audit has been designed and tested for radiotherapy film dosimetry at an international level. A framework for diagnosing issues within a film dosimetry process has been proposed that could be used to audit centers that use film as a dosimeter. Incorporating quality assurance throughout the film process is important in obtaining accurate and consistent film dosimetry. A better understanding of vendor-based software systems is necessary for users to process accurate and consistent film dosimetry.
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.