ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Evaluation of a Monte Carlo based EPID system for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT quality assurance.
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.
- Evaluation of a Monte Carlo based EPID system for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT quality assurance.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
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the performance of a new electronic portal imaging device (EPID) system with a Monte Carlo (MC) based algorithm for patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA), ensuring its reliability and effectiveness in treatment verification efficiency and precision.
methodsSixteen patients with various tumor sites were divided evenly into two groups for dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy verification. Measurements were performed on a UIH uRT-linac 506c linear accelerator with a Varex Imaging XRD 1642 EPID. The performance of the EPID was assessed for sensitivity to errors in monitor units, collimator angle, field offset, field size, and multi-leaf collimator functionality. Treatment plans were modified for each error and verified to determine the capability of the system to detect perturbations from the planned dose distribution, which was quantitatively analyzed using γ index analysis (2%/2 mm, 10% low-dose threshold). Additionally, the ArcCHECK phantom was employed to validate the EPID system for PSQA and induced error detection. Pearson's correlation coefficient was employed to assess correlations between γ passing rates and induced errors.
resultsThe EPID system showed high accuracy in dose linearity and error detection, with γ passing rates consistently above 95% for original plans. Sensitivity tests indicated strong correlations between induced errors and γ passing rates, confirming the capability of this system to detect subtle dosimetric discrepancies and supporting its application for PSQA. Both EPID and ArcCHECK demonstrated comparable γ passing rates in PSQA of standardized plans and treatment plans, with EPID showing higher or comparable sensitivity to tested errors.
conclusionThe EPID Plan QA system showed promising accuracy and sensitivity in detecting errors, proving to be a reliable tool for PSQA. Its seamless integration into clinical workflows is expected to enhance treatment verification efficiency and ensure precise radiotherapy delivery.
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.