ArticleJournal of medical physics
Dosimetric Validation of Treatment Plan Interchangeability between Factory Beam-matched Varian TrueBeam and Clinac Linear Accelerators for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and IMRT Delivery.
Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the dosimetric consistency and clinical interchangeability of treatment plans between factory beam-matched Varian TrueBeam SVC and Clinac iX linear accelerators across various anatomical locations. Materials and Methods: Eighty clinical plans were analyzed, including 40 intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans (20 for cervix and 20 for head and neck) and 40 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans (20 for breast and 20 for urinary bladder). Both linacs were independently commissioned per AAPM-106 protocols. Plans were recalculated on the alternate machine and compared statistically. Patient-specific QA was performed using ArcCHECK with 3%/2 mm gamma criteria. Transferable fractions were estimated using ICRU-50 (±5%) and AAPM TG-40 (±2%) guidelines to determine fractions safely deliverable without re-planning. Results: Beam commissioning showed excellent agreement within ±1% for all dosimetric parameters. Head and neck IMRT had minimal differences (D95%: -0.26%, Conclusions: Linear accelerators that are beam-matched in factories provide safe interchangeability of treatment plans for the majority of clinical scenarios, with VMAT showing improved consistency over IMRT due to continuous arc delivery averaging out minor machine-specific variations in multileaf collimator positioning and dose 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.