English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study used automated data processing techniques to calculate a set of novel treatment plan accuracy metrics, and investigate their usefulness as predictors of quality assurance (QA) success and failure. 151 beams from 23 prostate and cranial IMRT treatment plans were used in this study. These plans had been evaluated before treatment using measurements with a diode array system. The TADA software suite was adapted to allow automatic batch calculation of several proposed plan accuracy metrics, including mean field area, small-aperture, off-axis and closed-leaf factors. All of these results were compared the gamma pass rates from the QA measurements and correlations were investigated. The mean field area factor provided a threshold field size (5 cm2, equivalent to a 2.2 x 2.2 cm2 square field), below which all beams failed the QA tests. The small aperture score provided a useful predictor of plan failure, when averaged over all beams, despite being weakly correlated with gamma pass rates for individual beams. By contrast, the closed leaf and off-axis factors provided information about the geometric arrangement of the beam segments but were not useful for distinguishing between plans that passed and failed QA. This study has provided some simple tests for plan accuracy, which may help minimise time spent on QA assessments of treatments that are unlikely to pass

Predicting the likelihood of QA failure using treatment plan accuracy metrics