ArticlePrecision radiation oncology2023
Comparison of Rapid Arc and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in a True Beam Linear Accelerator for 6 MV: Application of AAPM TG-119 tests in treatment planning and quality assurance.
Article in Precision radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a virtual phantom for HDR cervical cancer brachytherapy: A multi-institutional tool for training, quality assurance, and variability reduction.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Comparison of Rapid Arc and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in a True Beam Linear Accelerator for 6 MV: Application of AAPM TG-119 tests in treatment planning and quality assurance.Precision radiation oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We developed rapid arc (RA) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans based on the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-119 (AAPM TG-119) proposals and compared the planning and quality assurance results. Materials and Methods: Two treatment plans were used for each study patient: one using 7-9 IMRT fields and the other using the two full-arc RA methods. Plan optimization and dose calculations were performed using 6 MV photons and Eclipse Results: The conformity index (CI) for treatment plans varied between 0.76-0.91 when using IMRT and 0.75-0.93 when using RA. The homogeneity index (HI) was approximately 0.10-0.24 (IMRT) and 0.07-0.23 (RA). The ratio of the total number of monitor units required for IMRT to that required for RA was between 0.87 and 2.14. The treatment log files exhibited higher gamma passing with RA than with IMRT. Conclusion: RA plans were more effective than IMRT plans in achieving the test goals. Point dose measurements and electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based planar fluence measurements showed statistically insignificant differences between the IMRT and RA plan quality assurance (QA) results. However, the trajectory log file analysis exhibited better gamma-passing results for RA than for IMRT.
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.