ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The complex dose delivery mechanisms of TomoTherapy (TOMO) demand rigorous patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). This study systematically evaluates the relationship between ArcCHECK measurements and GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (GPU-MC) calculations for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) TOMO plans across multiple gamma criteria, aiming to delineate their respective strengths and inform an optimized verification strategy. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 317 TOMO plans for NPC, each optimized using the Accuray Precision Treatment Planning System. Patient-specific dose verification was performed using ArcCHECK measurements and independent MC calculations implemented through PlanQA. Gamma passing rates (GPRs) were evaluated under nine different conditions, including both same-criterion and cross-criterion comparisons. To assess differences, agreement, and correlations between methods, statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Bland-Altman analysis, and Spearman correlation. Under identical Gamma criteria, there was no statistically significant difference in GPR between ArcCHECK and MC. However, cross-criterion comparisons revealed marked discrepancies, highlighting the criterion-dependent nature of GPR outcomes. Lenient standards typically exhibit good consistency and relatively minor deviations. Furthermore, the correlations among all combinations of these standards can be considered negligible. The comparable performance of GPU-MC and ArcCHECK under conventional criteria (3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm) validates ArcCHECK's established role in verifying delivery fidelity. Crucially, under the stringent 2%/2 mm criterion where ArcCHECK passing rates decline, MC provides critical diagnostic power to differentiate between discrepancies originating from the dose calculation algorithm and those arising from the physical delivery process. For TOMO PSQA, GPU-MC and ArcCHECK are complementary. An integrated approach leveraging both methods is therefore recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42258104What 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.