↓ Skip to main content

Changes in Patterns of Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy Verification and Quality Assurance in the UK

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oncology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
34 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.
Article details
Title
Changes in Patterns of Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy Verification and Quality Assurance in the UK
Published in
Clinical Oncology, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.clon.2016.01.013
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Between 2012 and 2014 the number of patients treated in the UK with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques increased significantly. One reason for this was the radiotherapy innovation fund for the centres in England. Before the announcement of the fund, a survey of radiotherapy centres was carried out in 2012 which collected data on IMRT uptake, obstacles to implementation, equipment used, delivery techniques and verification methods. A repeat survey was carried out in 2014 to identify key changes to IMRT quality assurance and verification practices. An online questionnaire was sent out to all 65 UK radiotherapy centres in the summer of 2012 and again in the summer of 2014. Questions covered background and equipment, machine tolerance and quality assurance, machine-based verification, software-based verification and future plans. There have been significant changes in the delivery techniques used for IMRT, with more than twice as many centres reporting the use of volumetric-modulated arc therapy techniques in 2014 compared with 2012. This has been combined with an increase in Monte Carlo-based algorithms in treatment planning systems. In 2012 all centres reported the need to carry out machine-based measurements for IMRT plan verification, dropping to 93% in 2014. Nineteen per cent of centres now report making only one measurement per month for prostate plans and 8% of breast plans never have physical measurements. Most centres use detector arrays for quality assurance measurement (86% in 2012 and 91% in 2014), but a significant number still use film and/or ionisation chambers (51% and 41%). In the analysis of these measurements there has been an increase in the use of tighter criteria. There has been a significant increase in the use of software for verification from 63% in 2012 to 95% in 2014. All centres reported that they needed further resources in order to efficiently achieve the quality assurance required for the number of patients planned to be treated in their centre. The increased numbers of patients being treated with IMRT has meant that there have been significant changes in the way that quality assurance is carried out. These have been mainly in the reduction of measurements and the increase in software-based verification. However, quality assurance is still a significant burden and still has an effect on the numbers of patients who can be treated with IMRT.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 12 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 10 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Engineering 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,624,724
of 28,879,505 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oncology
#1,399
of 2,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,496
of 421,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oncology
#21
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,879,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 421,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.