ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
A novel multimodality anthropomorphic phantom enhances compliance with quality assurance guidelines for magnetic resonance imaging in radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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.
- Recent innovations in offline and online Magnetic Resonance Imaging guided radiation oncology.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for radiotherapy (RT) simulation has grown, prompting quality assurance (QA) guidelines by the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). This study compares a novel multimodality anthropomorphic phantom to an American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom for a subset of these MRI-specific QA tests in RT. Materials and methods: A novel 3D-printed multimodality head-and-neck anthropomorphic phantom was compared to an ACR large MRI phantom. IPEM and AAPM-recommended QA tests were conducted, including informatics/connectivity/data transfer, MRI-CT registration, end-to-end QA, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)/percentage integral uniformity (PIU) assessments using RT accessories. Results: Both phantoms were suitable for informatics/connectivity/data transfer. In MRI-CT registration, no errors were found; the ACR phantom offered more quantitative landmarks, while the anthropomorphic phantom provided limited structures. Both phantoms achieved target registration errors (TREs) below 0.97 mm and dice similarity coefficient (DSC) values above 0.9, meeting guidelines. For end-to-end QA, the anthropomorphic phantom facilitated dose measurements of 1.994 Gy versus a calculated 2.01 Gy (-0.8 %). SNR and PIU assessments showed higher values in radiology setups compared to RT setups for both phantoms. Conclusions: Multimodality anthropomorphic phantoms compatible with dosimetric equipment allow realistic end-to-end QA, unlike the ACR phantom. While the ACR phantom is suitable for informatics and MRI-CT registration, anthropomorphic phantoms better represent clinical scenarios. For comprehensive QA, both ACR and anthropomorphic phantoms are required. Additionally, large field-of-view (FOV) phantoms are crucial for evaluating large FOV MRI distortions.
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.