ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Validating a framework for Pinnacle plan conversion and archival.
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 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.
- The deployment of ProKnow for cloud-based clinical research in radiotherapy.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Validating a framework for Pinnacle plan conversion and archival.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Pinnacle treatment planning system support ends after December 31, 2026. As access to patient treatment records is necessary for continued care, a validated method to access and use this historic treatment planning data is needed.
methodsSun Nuclear Gateway was used to convert over 20,000 patients stored in the TAR format for 8 versions of Pinnacle and archive this data into DICOM formatted images, structures, and dose re-sampled to 2 mm. Using this solution, a total of 800 patients were automatically converted and pushed to ProKnow, a commercial cloud-based RT-PACS. An initial quality check was performed to verify that the data was converted and associated correctly. Twenty-five random patients were then validated for each version of Pinnacle by reviewing plan name, the MU per beam, structures, max dose point, the number of beams, and the number of fractions. For each Pinnacle version, a 1%/1 mm 3D gamma analysis between the Pinnacle exported and the Gateway converted RT dose for a random plan was performed. The amount of space and time required to archive Pinnacle plans to DICOM format was recorded.
resultsThe average patient Pinnacle TAR size was 687.38 ± 599.62 MB and required 120 ± 49s to archive with an average conversion size of 155 ± 26 MB. A 2% initial archival error was observed that was remedied by repushing the affected patients to ProKnow. A conversion error rate of 0.5% was observed for the described validation process for the 200 patients plans. The average 1%/1 mm 3D gamma analysis pass rate was 99.96%.
conclusionsGateway has been validated as a conversion solution of TAR data to DICOM for Pinnacle versions 7.4f, 8.0d, 8.0m, 9.0, 9.2, 9.8, 9.10, and 16.2.
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.