ArticleJournal of medical physics
Impact of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Control Point Discretisation on Dosimetry: A Comparative Evaluation of Two Treatment Planning Systems.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate the dose calculation accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) control point (CP) discretisation approaches in Pinnacle and RayStation treatment planning systems (TPSs). Methods: The 6MV beam model for Elekta linear accelerator with Agility head generated in Pinnacle and RayStation was used in this study. The impact of CP discretization on dose calculation was assessed using 10 prostate and ten breast VMAT plans generated in each TPS. In Pinnacle, VMAT plans were generated using both 4° and 2° CP gantry spacing, while RayStation plans used 2° spacing. To assess the dosimetric differences due to CP discretization, VMAT plans from Pinnacle were recalculated in RayStation, and vice versa. The impact of CP discretization on target volume and critical structures was assessed by comparing dose volume histogram metrics. The agreement between ArcCheck-measured and TPS-calculated doses was assessed using gamma analysis with a 2%2 mm tolerance criterion. Results: The prostate and breast plans with 2° spacing generated in Pinnacle and recalculated in RayStation showed a mean (Std Dev) target dose agreement of 1.0 (0.4)% and 0.3 (0.8)%, respectively. The similar comparison for RayStation-generated plans recalculated in Pinnacle was 0.8 (0.2)% and 2.4 (0.2)%, respectively. The ArcCheck measurements of Pinnacle-generated prostate and breast plans showed a mean gamma pass rate of 96.5 (1.2)% and 91.5 (5.2)%, respectively. Similarly, RayStation-generated prostate and breast plans had a mean gamma pass rate of 96.7 (2.3)% and 95.4 (3.7)%, respectively. Conclusions: The CP discretization approach implemented in RayStation results in improved dose calculation accuracy of VMAT plans, particularly for plans with larger CP spacing.
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.