Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 911

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning

Open access
Fraass, Benedick, Doppke, Karen, Hunt, Margie, Kutcher, Gerald, Starkschall, George, Stern, Robin, Van Dyke, Jake·1998·Medical Physics

Abstract

In recent years, the sophistication and complexity of clinical treatment planning and treatment planning systems has increased significantly, particularly including three‐dimensional (3D) treatment planning systems, and the use of conformal treatment planning and delivery techniques. This has led to the need for a comprehensive set of quality assurance (QA) guidelines that can be applied to clinical treatment planning. This document is the report of Task Group 53 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a comprehensive but viable program of quality assurance for modern radiotherapy treatment planning. The scope of the QA needs for treatment planning is quite broad, encompassing image‐based definition of patient anatomy, 3D beam descriptions for complex beams including multileaf collimator apertures, 3D dose calculation algorithms, and complex plan evaluation tools including dose volume histograms. The Task Group recommends an organizational framework for the task of creating a QA program which is individualized to the needs of each institution and addresses the issues of acceptance testing, commissioning the planning system and planning process, routine quality assurance, and ongoing QA of the planning process. This report, while not prescribing specific QA tests, provides the framework and guidance to allow radiation oncology physicists to design comprehensive and practical treatment planning QA programs for their clinics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1118/1.598373

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Fraass, B., Doppke, K., Hunt, M., Kutcher, G., Starkschall, G., Stern, R., & Van Dyke, J.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-10
Volume
25
Issue
10
Pages
1773-1829
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2116272759
Cited by
911
References
14
FWCI
14.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.598373
The paper
Fraass, B., Doppke, K., Hunt, M., Kutcher, G., Starkschall, G., Stern, R., & Van Dyke, J. (1998). American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598373

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.