↓ Skip to main content

A remote EPID-based dosimetric TPS-planned audit of centers for clinical trials: outcomes and analysis of contributing factors

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A remote EPID-based dosimetric TPS-planned audit of centers for clinical trials: outcomes and analysis of contributing factors
Published in
Radiation Oncology, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13014-018-1125-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Narges Miri, Kimberley Legge, Kim Colyvas, Joerg Lehmann, Philip Vial, Alisha Moore, Monica Harris, Peter B. Greer

Abstract

A novel remote method for external dosimetric TPS-planned auditing of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for clinical trials using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) has been developed. The audit has been applied to multiple centers across Australia and New Zealand. This work aims to assess the audit outcomes and explores the variables that contributed to the audit results. Thirty audits were performed of 21 radiotherapy facilities, 17 facilities underwent IMRT audits and 13 underwent VMAT audits. The assessment was based on comparisons between the delivered doses derived from images acquired with EPIDs and planned doses from the local treatment planning systems (TPS). Gamma pass-rate (GPR) and gamma mean value (GMV) were calculated for each IMRT field and VMAT arc (total 268 comparisons). A multiple variable linear model was applied to the GMV results (3%/3 mm criteria) to assess the influence and significance of explanatory variables. The explanatory variables were Linac-TPS combination, TPS grid resolution, IMRT/VMAT delivery, age of EPID, treatment site, record and verification system (R&V) type and dose-rate. Finally, the audit results were compared with other recent audits by calculating the incidence ratio (IR) as a ratio of the observed mean/median GPRs for the remote audit to the other audits. The average (± 1 SD) of the centers' GPRs were: 99.3 ± 1.9%, 98.6 ± 2.7% & 96.2 ± 5.5% at 3%, 3 mm, 3%, 2 mm and 2%, 2 mm criteria respectively. The most determinative variables on the GMVs were Linac-TPS combination, TPS grid resolution and IMRT/VMAT delivery type. The IR values were 1 for seven comparisons, indicating similar GPRs of the remote audit with the reference audits and > 1 for four comparisons, indicating higher GPRs of the remote audit than the reference audits. The remote dosimetry audit method for clinical trials demonstrated high GPRs and provided results comparable to established more resource-intensive audit methods. Several factors were found to influence the results including some effect of Linac-TPS combination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 4 20%
Engineering 4 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,545,423
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#1,061
of 2,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,517
of 341,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#22
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,079 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.