ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Clinical implementation and impact of real-time Cherenkov imaging for treatment verification and patient safety in radiation therapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
Background and purpose: Real-time Cherenkov imaging (CI) visualizes surface dose distribution during external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Although feasibility has been demonstrated, sustained multi-site implementation with predefined clinical impact metrics remains less well characterized. We evaluated clinic-wide CI integration across two centers over two years and quantified clinical impact, timing of detection, and corrective actions. Materials and methods: CI (DoseRT, Vision RT) was incorporated into routine treatment delivery on Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. All techniques (3D, IMRT, SRS/SBRT) were monitored prospectively. Findings were assigned the highest plan-level clinical impact category: 0-1 (informational/non-actionable), 2 (setup refinement), 3 (workflow/planning modification), and 4 (immediate intervention). During implementation, mandatory physics review of CI images from the first five fractions of new treatment starts was adopted. Outcomes included actionable rate (Categories 2-4), time to first detection, and corrective endpoints (replanning, workflow changes). Results: Among 1,196 plans, 15% were actionable (Category 2: 8%; Category 3: 4%; Category 4: 3%). Twenty-one plans (1.8%) required partial or full replanning and 30 (2.5%) prompted workflow or policy modifications. Approximately half of Category 4 deviations were identified during beam-on and required immediate interruption and correction. Deviations were concentrated in early fractions: 76% were detected by fraction 3 and 89% by fraction 5 (median 2.6). Conclusions: Clinic-wide CI integration is feasible and identifies actionable deviations in 15% of treatment plans, predominantly within the first five fractions. Real-time visualization supported immediate intervention and system-level workflow refinement without measurable disruption to clinical throughput, supporting CI as a complementary verification layer to IGRT/SGRT for patient safety.
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.