ArticleJournal of medical physics
Commissioning of a Commercial Secondary Dose Check Software and Clinical Implementation for the Magnetic Resonance-guided Linear Accelerator Adaptive Workflow.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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.
- Evaluation of ThinkQA (v2.0.1.11) as an online secondary dose check for MR guided radiation therapy with the Elekta Unity MR-Linac.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to report the commissioning the secondary dose calculation software ThinkQA (TQA) for an magnetic resonance-guided linear accelerator (MR-linac). Methods: The Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a. (MPPG5a) tests, and dose in inhomogeneities, beam profiles, and depth dose curves were calculated and compared between Monaco and TQA. Five intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans (anal, abdominal, head and neck, prostate, and lung), based on TG-244 guidelines were evaluated varying the gamma criteria. Furthermore, the initial and adapted plans for the first session for 17 patients in different anatomical regions were calculated in TQA using different gamma criteria. For five patients, six measurements were made at different fractions using ArcCheck and compared with TQA. Results: The majority of tests met the tolerances defined in the MPPG5a with the exception of dose profiles (>10%), and large multileaf collimator-shaped fields with extensive blocking (>2%). For the IMRT plans, tight criteria such as 2%/2 mm may not be suitable for all scenarios. Thus, we adopt a reasonable 3%/2 mm without compromising the quality of the plan that included significant high-to-low-density interfaces. It is observed that, the values obtained for clinical cases are in the range from 94.6% to 99.8% (TQA), 97.0% to 99.6% (ArcCheck), except in a prostate case with 87.8% (TQA) and 99.3% (ArcCheck). Conclusion: We commissioned TQA as a secondary dose calculation for MR-linac and we introduced it clinically for adaptive treatment workflow using 3%/2 mm with 95% as tolerance limit and 90% as action limit.
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.