ArticleJournal of medical physics
Beyond Gamma Analysis: An Accessibility-oriented Framework for Comparative Evaluation of Patient-specific Radiotherapy Quality Assurance.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in radiotherapy is traditionally performed using measurement-based systems that require dedicated hardware, machine time, and manpower. Although software-based QA approaches have emerged as efficient alternatives, their comparative accessibility and operational performance remain insufficiently investigated. This study evaluated conventional and software-based QA methodologies using integrated dosimetric, temporal, and economic metrics. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 clinically approved treatment plans, including head-and-neck, pelvis, and lung volumetric modulated arc therapy/stereotactic body radiotherapy cases, were retrospectively analysed. All plans were generated in Eclipse TPS v15.6 and evaluated using ArcCHECK phantom-based QA, electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based QA, and log file-based QA. Gamma analysis was performed using 3%/2 mm criteria with a 10% dose threshold. Workflow time and relative cost burden were recorded for each method. Three composite indices were defined: QA Cost Efficiency Index (QCEI), QA Efficiency Index (QEI), and QA Accessibility Index (QAI). Statistical comparisons were performed using paired analysis with Bonferroni correction. Results: All QA methods achieved clinically acceptable gamma passing rates. Log file-based QA demonstrated the highest median gamma passing rate; however, the absolute differences between methodologies were small, and all approaches exceeded the predefined clinical acceptance criterion (≥95%). ArcCHECK showed the greatest workflow time and cost burden, whereas log file-based QA demonstrated the highest QCEI, QEI, and QAI values. EPID-based QA showed intermediate performance. All pairwise differences in accessibility metrics were statistically significant ( Conclusion: Software-based QA approaches significantly improved operational efficiency and accessibility while maintaining clinically acceptable dosimetric agreement. However, further prospective, multi-institutional validation of the proposed accessibility framework is warranted.
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.