ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Implementing log file-based patient-specific QA for VMAT plans: A comparative study of MobiusFX and measurement-based approaches.
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 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.
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
backgroundThe current interest in utilizing log file-based patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) is growing as an alternative to measurement-based approaches for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. However, implementing log file-based PSQA requires further experience and understanding since there are no guidelines. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing commercial log file-based PSQA (MobiusFX) for pretreatment verification of VMAT plans by comparing its outcomes with measurement-based methods.
methodsThe study was conducted by selecting 40 VMAT plans and these plans were performed for pretreatment verification for both MobiusFX and measurement-based methods, including portal dosimetry, ArcCHECK, and Octavius4D with gamma analysis at criteria 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm. The agreement of gamma passing rate between MobiusFX and measurement-based methods was assessed through scatter plots and percentage agreement score. Additionally, the root mean square (RMS) errors obtained from MobiusFX were investigated in each machine parameter, and examined the correlation between the gamma passing rate and plan complexity metric (MU/Gy) by Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. The statistical control process concept from TG 218 was also applied to establish the action limit (AL) and tolerance limit (TL) for MobiusFX.
resultsThe scatter plots of MobiusFX illustrated a trend similar to the measurement-based methods, with high percentage agreement scores observed at 3%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm criteria. RMS errors were zero for all parameters except multileaf collimator (MLC), and the maximum RMS was 0.06 mm. No correlation was found between the gamma passing rate and the complexity metric in this study. The most appropriate TL and AL for the gamma passing rate with MobiusFX were determined to be 95.38% and 94.75%, respectively, at the 3%/2 mm criterion.
conclusionMobiusFX showed interchangeable gamma passing rates with measurement-based methods at the 3%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm criteria, supporting its use as an alternative for VMAT pretreatment verification. Machine- and system-specific factors should be considered for reliable clinical implementation.
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.