ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2026
Efficacy and clinical use of novel high-resolution EPID-based 2D and 3D automated patient-specific quality assurance for SRS and SBRT patients.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2026. 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.
- Clinical assessment of dedicated SRS detector for dose verification in SBRT/SRS treatment plans: to establish clinical threshold with AAPM TG-218 recommendation.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Current Practices and Clinical Implementation of Electronic Portal Imaging Device-based Dosimetry in Indian Radiotherapy Centres: A National Survey.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments should be delivered with caution because any delivery error can have a severe radiobiological impact on the patient due to the high dose per fraction used in such modalities. Therefore, a very high accuracy including a quality assurance program accompanying the entire treatment process is required. This study assessed the efficacy and clinical use of novel high-resolution 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional electronic portal imaging devices, an automated patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for SRS and SBRT patients. The dosimetric performance of these devices was evaluated by comparison with other detectors. Deliberate errors (errors of multi leave collimators (MLCs), gantry and collimator angle, and monitor unit (MU) changes) were introduced to assess the sensitivity of the devices. Twenty volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans from various tumour sites, constrained to field sizes below 7.7 cm × 7.7 cm, were analyzed. Point dose measurements showed mean dose differences of 0.1% ± 1.5% for ionization chambers and 0.94% ± 1.8% for EPID compared to treatment planning system (TPS) calculations. With 2%/2 mm, average Gamma Passing Rates (GPRs) were 98.6% (film), 99.0% (SRS MapCHECK®), 98.7% (PDIP), 99.5% (PerFRACTION™,2D), 99.8% (PerFRACTION™,3D), and 93.2% for ArcCHECK®. At stringent 2%/1 mm criteria, high-resolution systems maintained > 94% pass rates while ArcCHECK® dropped to 73.5%. EPID showed comparable GPRs to films and SRS MapCHECK®. EPID detected most errors except small MLC shifts and gantry angle errors. It is concluded that EPID dosimetry can perform SRS and SBRT PSQA without additional devices. Thus, it offers a cost-effective, high-resolution alternative comparable to dedicated devices, enhancing clinical efficiency, without compromising accuracy.
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.