ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2011
Clinical comparison of dose calculation using the enhanced collapsed cone algorithm vs. a new Monte Carlo algorithm.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dosimetric accuracy of three dose calculation algorithms for radiation therapy of in situ non-small cell lung carcinoma.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022Article
- Density scaling of phantom materials for a 3D dose verification system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018Article
- Independent absorbed-dose calculation using the Monte Carlo algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2014Article
- Hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy using Elekta equipment.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2013Article
- Assessing the role of volumetric-modulated arc therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2013Article
- Clinical relevance of different dose calculation strategies for mediastinal IMRT in Hodgkin's disease.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2012Article
- Comparison between Acuros XB and Brainlab Monte Carlo algorithms for photon dose calculation.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2012Article
- Evaluation of heterogeneity dose distributions for Stereotactic Radiotherapy (SRT): comparison of commercially available Monte Carlo dose calculation with other algorithms.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComparison of the dosimetric accuracy of the enhanced collapsed cone (eCC) algorithm with the commercially available Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation for complex treatment techniques. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 8 intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 2 stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung cases were calculated with eCC and MC algorithms with the treatment planning systems (TPS) Oncentra MasterPlan 3.2 (Nucletron) and Monaco 2.01 (Elekta/CMS). Fluence optimization as well as sequencing of IMRT plans was primarily performed using Monaco. Dose prediction errors were calculated using MC as reference. The dose-volume histrogram (DVH) analysis was complemented with 2D and 3D gamma evaluation. Both algorithms were compared to measurements using the Delta4 system (Scandidos).
resultsRecalculated with eCC IMRT plans resulted in lower planned target volume (PTV) coverage, as well as in lower organs-at-risk (OAR) doses up to 8%. Small deviations between MC and eCC in PTV dose (1-2%) were detected for IMRT cases, while larger deviations were observed for SBRT (up to 5%). Conformity indices of both calculations were similar; however, the homogeneity of the eCC calculated plans was slightly better. Delta4 measurements confirmed high dosimetric accuracy of both TPS.
conclusionMean dose prediction errors < 3% for PTV suggest that both algorithms enable highly accurate dose calculations under clinical conditions. However, users should be aware of slightly underestimated OAR doses using the eCC algorithm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21713394What 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.