ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Quality assurance of craniospinal irradiation in helical tomotherapy using a dose reconstruction tool based on leaf open time.
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.
- Quality assurance of craniospinal irradiation in helical tomotherapy using a dose reconstruction tool based on leaf open time.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe delivery quality assurance (DQA) of craniospinal irradiation (CSI) due to the target length results in no ideal verification devices. Delivery Analysis (DA) could calculate the dose distribution based on the measured multi leaf open time in helical tomotherapy (HT). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DA for DQA of CSI in HT. MATERIAL AND
methods32 CSI plans were classified into two groups based on γ analysis of the PTV-cranial and PTV-spine plans using a 2D ionization chamber matrix (MatriXX). Plans with γ passing rates ≥ 95% at 3%/2 mm were classified as the passed group, while those < 95% were classified as the failed group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves identified optimal passing rate threshold for DA in HT. Logistic regression analyzed risk factors for DQA failure, and failed plans were reoptimized according to the adjusted parameter.
resultsFor PTV-cranial plans, 30 passed and two failed; for PTV-spine plans, 21 passed and 11 failed. ROC analysis revealed areas under the curve of 0.858 (PTV-cranial, threshold: 89.0%) and 0.714 (PTV-spine, threshold: 86.0%). Logistic regression identified planned modulation factor (MF-plan; p = 0.046; p = 0.023) and actual modulation factor (MF-actual; p = 0.027; p = 0.008) as independent risk factors for DQA failure in both MatriXX and DA. Additionally, beam on time (p = 0.043), gantry period (p = 0.007) and maximum leaf open time (p = 0.007) were identified as independent risk factors for DA. Reoptimization of failed plans with MF-plan = 2.6 significantly improved passing rates in DA (73.70% ± 13.30% vs. 88.20% ± 12.30%; p = 0.010) and MatriXX (91.20% ± 2.60% vs. 96.10% ± 1.40%; p < 0.001).
conclusionDelivery Analysis could be a feasible tool for DQA of CSI in HT. Increasing the MF-plan is recommended to enhance the passing rate.
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.