ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Quantitative evaluation of the effect of anatomical changes on the results of in vivo dosimetry during radiation therapy in the thoracic region.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnatomical changes during thoracic radiation therapy can alter dose delivery and compromise accuracy. Electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry (IVD) enables noninvasive monitoring of these changes during treatment. PURPOSE: This study quantitatively evaluated the impact of EPID-based IVD in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and explored the potential of IVD for guiding timely replanning.
methodsEleven patients undergoing thoracic VMAT were retrospectively analyzed: six required replanning as a result of anatomical changes (replanning group), and five did not (normal group). For each fraction, cumulative EPID transit images were acquired, and the global gamma passing rate (GPR) was calculated using six criteria. The difference between treatment GPR and patient-specific QA GPR (ΔGPR) was used to reduce plan-specific bias. For four patients in the replanning group (excluding two patients who were excluded due to changes in treatment machines or immobilization), the original plans were recalculated on post-replanning CT images to estimate dose changes in the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risks (OARs).
resultsAcross all criteria, the normal group demonstrated higher GPR and ΔGPR values. The 3%/3 mm criterion best discriminated between groups, with a per-fraction GPR of 98.2% ± 1.1% (normal) versus 90.5% ± 7.1% (replanning). GPR improved after replanning but remained below the levels observed in the normal group. Dose simulations indicated that continuing treatment without replanning increased the PTV dose (D50% up to + 3.5%) and OAR doses, with increases exceeding 5 Gy in some cases.
conclusionsEPID-based IVD detected reduced GPR values in replanning cases, identifying the 3%/3 mm criterion as optimal. A per-fraction GPR of < 97% under this criterion may indicate notable anatomical changes. Continuing treatment without replanning tended to increase doses delivered to the target and normal tissues. These findings support the clinical utility of IVD and provide quantitative criteria for replanning decisions beyond CT or contour-based assessments.
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.