ArticlePloS one2026
Analysis of IMRT patient specific quality assurance using EPID measurement data from the Halcyon linear accelerator.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the characteristics of electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based perpendicular field-by-field patient-specific quality assurance (PFF-PSQA) on the Halcyon linear accelerator by comparing them with the true composite (TC)-PSQA performed using the Delta4 Phantom+ (ScandiDos, Sweden) system. Both methods demonstrated excellent dose agreement under the AAPM TG-218 gamma criteria and strong correlations were observed between their results across prostate, nasopharynx, and breast cases. However, gamma passing rate (GPR) reductions due to treatment isocenter displacements were more pronounced in TC-PSQA, whereas EPID-based PFF-PSQA consistently showed relatively higher and more stable GPR values. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis confirmed a significant difference in sensitivity to displacement-induced errors, supporting the clinical robustness of EPID-based PFF-PSQA. In addition, EPID-based PFF-PSQA yielded tolerance and action limits of 99.5% and 99.4%, respectively, which exceed the conventional 95% and 90% thresholds specified in the report of American association of physicists in medicine (AAPM) TG-218, highlighting the necessity of refining evaluation criteria for this approach. Overall, these findings indicate that EPID-based PFF-PSQA can serve as a reliable and clinically alternative to TC-PSQA.
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.