ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Patient-specific quality assurance for extremely small field sizes using 3D in vivo dosimetry in fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Multi-institutional study of multileaf collimator parameters and dose calculation accuracy using the enhanced leaf model.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Patient-specific quality assurance for extremely small field sizes using 3D in vivo dosimetry in fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (fSRS) using LINAC-based volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has become widely adopted and achieved favorable outcomes. However, this technique involves extremely small field sizes, making pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) with high-resolution detectors essential. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the error detection sensitivity and utility of EPID using 3D in vivo dosimetry based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis for brain fSRS pre-treatment QA.
methodsVMAT plans were generated for spherical planning target volumes (PTVs) with diameters of 1-3 cm centered in SRS MapCHECK. A monitor unit (MU) output error was introduced in increments, and the leaf gap width was systematically opened and closed. Finally, multi-leaf collimator (MLC) shift errors were applied. The error detection sensitivity was evaluated with these intentional errors. We compared this with the SRS MapCHECK 2D gamma analysis conventionally used in pre-treatment QA. For in vivo dosimetry, 3D dose calculations were performed with PerFRACTION using cine-mode electronic portal imaging device images and log files. DVH parameters such as D98%, D95%, D2%, and average doses of the PTV were compared between the base plan and the error plans. The 2D gamma analysis was performed using global gamma of 3%/2 mm, 3%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, and 1%/1 mm.
resultsThe 2D gamma analysis revealed no MU output errors for the 1 cm target across all criteria. The 2%/1 mm criterion effectively detected errors in leaf gap width and MLC shifts in some cases. Conversely, all error types were detected by 3D in vivo dosimetry using D95% of the target.
conclusionIn pre-treatment QA for brain fSRS, 3D in vivo dosimetry based on DVH analysis demonstrated superior error detection sensitivity compared to conventional 2D gamma analysis. Our results suggest that 3D in vivo dosimetry is a useful tool for pre-treatment QA in brain fSRS.
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.