ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Accuracy of manufacturer integrated quality control for helical 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.
- Comparative dosimetric evaluation of independent verification systems: ArcherQA versus AccuCheck for volumetric modulated Arc therapy plan validation.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Manufacturer-integrated quality control (MIQC) systems are often used but not considered standard in codes-of-practice (COP), such as TG148/306 or NCS27, for helical radiotherapy. MIQC can lead to false positive results and generally lacks external validation. Energy quality control (QC) conditions are defined in COPs, manuals, or MIQC using various field sizes, phantoms, and indicators assuming equal response functions to energy changes. This study investigated the accuracy of MIQC for helical radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: A clinical helical treatment unit was detuned in terms of energy, dose rate, field width, and air pressure. The reproducibility/precision and response/trueness of MIQC, conventional QC methods, and patient-specific quality assurance were evaluated. Monte Carlo calculations were performed to identify differences in responses of depth dose ratios DD10/1.5, DD20/1.5, DD20/10, Tissue-Phantom Ratio TPR20/10, and ratio to max DD10(x) for various field sizes and phantoms. Results: The accuracy of MIQC for underlying causes was determined; precision was often excellent, but trueness required proportionality correction: e.g., 1 % DD10(x, 5 × 10 cm Conclusions: The MIQC metrological accuracy assessment can be used to define action/tolerance limits for COPs as well as to easily analyze out-of-bound results in routine practice.
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.