ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
The use of Perspex-based devices in patient specific quality assurance of Acuros XB plans.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A transition from the dose-to-water algorithm AAA to the dose-to-medium algorithm Acuros XB (AXB) presents challenges for comparison with measurements made in the dose-to-water calibrated ArcCHECK. This study evaluates the implications of this transition on patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements. A modified dose-medium calibration for the ArcCHECK to was introduced to address these limitations, by developing a formalism to compare ionisation chamber measurements to water-like plastics such as Perspex to AXB dose-to-medium calculations. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 40 VMAT plans: 5 prostate, 5 cervix, 10 head/neck, 10 lung (5 standard VMAT, 5 SBRT), and 10 breast. Plans were recalculated in AXB using a Perspex-assigned ArcCHECK phantom and compared with dose-to-water and dose-to-medium calibrated ArcCHECK measurements with a γ (3%,2 mm) criteria. Only one of 35 non-SBRT AXB dose-to-medium plans was within clinical tolerance during dose-to-water calibrated ArcCHECK comparisons, compared to 33 of 35 AAA dose-to-water plans. Applying the proposed dose-to-medium calibration improved results, with 30 of 35 AXB plans performing within tolerance. In the SBRT lung cases, no AXB dose-to-medium plans passed ArcCHECK gamma comparisons, compared to four out of five AAA plans. Applying the dose-to-medium calibration to the ArcCHECK did not improve the passing rates, suggesting limitations of AXB calculations on the ArcCHECK device. This study highlights the inadequacy of dose-to-water calibrated PSQA devices for verifying AXB dose-to-medium calculations and demonstrates practical solutions, including applying a dose-to-medium calibration for the ArcCHECK for AXB PSQA applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42599380What 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.