ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Tuning a secondary dose verification software for a CT-guided online adaptive delivery system.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tuning a secondary dose verification software for a CT-guided online adaptive delivery system.Journal of applied clinical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality assurance (QA) remains unstandardized for CT-guided online adaptive radiotherapy (CTgART) platforms (Ethos, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA), as they become more clinically prevalent. A secondary dose calculation software (Mobius3D, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) is provided for this closed CTgART system. However, the clinical impact of tuning dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) correction values for specific delivery techniques for CTgART secondary dose calculations remains uninvestigated. PURPOSE: Tuning the DLG correction value for different delivery techniques of the independent secondary dose verification software for adaptive online QA.
methodsA total of 31 volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and 13 fixed-gantry intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were selected from representative anatomical sites treated in our clinic. All plans were evaluated on a patient CT dataset and a QA dataset of a solid water phantom with an embedded ion chamber placed at the center in both primary treatment planning systems (TPS) and secondary dose verification software. Primary TPS plan doses were compared with secondary calculation doses on patient CT by calculating 3D gamma passing criteria under different DLG correction values ranging from -2 to 2 mm to determine the optimal DLG correction range. Ion chamber verification measurements were then compared to secondary calculation dose to determine the optimal DLG correction value by minimizing the difference for IMRT and VMAT plans, separately.
resultsThe optimal DLG correction values for VMAT and IMRT techniques were -0.3 and 0.4 mm respectively for the selected clinical cohort of patients. The mean gamma passing rate between primary and secondary doses for VMAT and IMRT were 99.0% ± 1.0% and 99.9% ± 0.1% with 3%/2 mm and excluding 10% low dose criteria. The mean ion chamber agreement for VMAT and IMRT were 0.0% ± 2.1% and 0.2% ± 1.4%.
conclusionDLG correction value should be tuned for each delivery technique (VMAT and IMRT) separately to maximize the robustness of CTgART online QA programs.
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.