ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2026
Dose calculation errors for volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of various complexity.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medical physics in the Nordic countries: collaboration and future challenges - report from the Nordic Association for Clinical Physics 2026 Symposium.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeVolumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans often involve small and irregular beam apertures (i.e. high complexity), which can pose challenges for accurate dose calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate plausible dose calculation errors for VMAT plans of various complexity. Patient/material and methods: Twenty patient cases, each with three VMAT plans of different complexities (i.e. 60 plans in total), were included. All plans were calculated using six different dose calculation methods. It was assumed that greater differences between calculations reflect increased difficulty in accurately estimating dose. Basic performances of the six calculation methods were evaluated based on static fields. Three-dimensional distributions of voxel-wise two standard deviations (2SDs) in percent of local voxel dose were visually evaluated. 2SD volume histograms were analyzed as well as the mean (2SDMean) and maximum 2SD within 2 cm3 (2SD2cc) for different regions of interest.
resultsHigher 2SD values were generally found outside the planning target volume (PTV) compared to inside, particularly in low dose and buildup regions. Average (per treatment site) 2SDMean/2SD2cc values were 0.9-1.2%/1.8-5.1% in the PTV and 1.8-3.1/8.4-18.7% for the region 1 cm outside the PTV. For organs of interest, 2SDMean/2SD2cc values were larger than the equivalent values in the PTV, with highest values up to 5/15% observed for the prostate cases.
interpretationVariations between dose calculation methods were larger in organs of interest than in the PTVs. Differences in 2SD distributions between the patient cases were generally larger than differences between the complexity levels.
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.