ArticleJournal of medical physics
An Analysis of Quality Assurance for Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Treatment Plans Using Two Dosimetric Methods: The arcCHECK System and EPIbeam Based Dosimetric Approach.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The current study is to assess and compare the performance of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based dosimetry system electronic portal imaging beam (EPIbeam) and a three-dimensional (3D) diode array system (ArcCHECK) using various gamma criteria (3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm) in verifying intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans at different anatomical sites. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 clinical IMRT and VMAT treatment plans covering head and neck (HN), thoracic and pelvic sites were considered for patient specific quality assurance (PSQA). All the plans were calculated with the Monaco TPS (v6.1.4.0) and were treated with an Elekta Infinity linear accelerator with 6 MV photon beams. EPID-based portal dosimetry (EPIbeam, DosiSoft) and ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corporation) were utilized to carry out PSQA. All plans were analyzed using global gamma with 10% dose threshold and 95% pass-rate. Results: A 3%/3 mm, EPID showed almost perfect pass rates (99.48%-100%) in HN, Thoracic, and Pelvic regions, and ArcCHECK was also close behind (97%-100%). EPID and ArcCHECK performed with a high level of accuracy (97.82-100 and 88.5%-98.8%, respectively) under stricter 2%/2 mm criteria. Using 3%/2 mm gamma criteria, EPID demonstrates higher pass rates (98.6%-100%), and ArcCHECK had also increased (93.2%-99.8%). In the most stringent 1%/1 mm, the performance of EPID declined moderately (77.28%-98.73%), and ArcCHECK had the lowest pass rates (61.6%-91.4%). In general, EPID exhibited better and more reproducible dose delivery accuracy in all conditions. The differences between the quality assurance (QA) systems were statistically significant ( Conclusion: The PSQA systems EPID-based and ArcCHECK-based are valuable dosimetric verification of IMRT and VMAT. Their sensitivity and accuracy are emphasized by gamma analysis on several criteria. The EPID system offers Logistical advantage in clinical workflow, whereas ArcCHECK provides 3D dose verification. Both modalities are viable in clinical QA protocols.
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.