ArticleThe British journal of radiology2020
Automated Monte-Carlo re-calculation of proton therapy plans using Geant4/Gate: implementation and comparison to plan-specific quality assurance measurements.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proton pencil beam scanning lattice radiotherapy: technical implementation and comparison against photon-based delivery.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Beam commissioning of a new compact scanned proton therapy system with four different dose calculation algorithms.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Experimental validation of Geant4 nuclear interaction models in dose calculations of therapeutic carbon ion beams.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Emulating the Delivery of Sawtooth Proton Arc Therapy Plans on a Cyclotron-Based Proton Beam Therapy System.Cancers · 2024Article
- Commissioning and clinical implementation of an independent dose calculation system for scanned proton beams.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Proton linear energy transfer and variable relative biological effectiveness for adolescent patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.BJR open · 2023Article
- The OpenGATE ecosystem for Monte Carlo simulation in medical physics.Physics in medicine and biology · 2022Review
- A preclinical radiotherapy dosimetry audit using a realistic 3D printed murine phantom.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- How can we consider variable RBE and LETRadiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Dose calculation accuracy in particle therapy: Comparing carbon ions with protons.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Fast MCsquare-Based Independent Dose Verification Platform for Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSoftware re-calculation of proton pencil beam scanning plans provides a method of verifying treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations prior to patient treatment. This study describes the implementation of AutoMC, a Geant4 v10.3.3/Gate v8.1 (Gate-RTion v1.0)-based Monte-Carlo (MC) system for automated plan re-calculation, and presents verification results for 153 patients (730 fields) planned within year one of the proton service at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust.
methodsA MC beam model for a Varian ProBeam delivery system with four range-shifter options (none, 2 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm) was derived from beam commissioning data and implemented in AutoMC. MC and TPS (Varian Eclipse v13.7) calculations of 730 fields in solid-water were compared to physical plan-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements acquired using a PTW Octavius 1500XDR array and PTW 31021 Semiflex 3D ion chamber.
resultsTPS and MC showed good agreement with array measurements, evaluated using γ analyses at 3%, 3 mm with a 10% lower dose threshold:>94% of fields calculated by the TPS and >99% of fields calculated by MC had γ ≤ 1 for>95% of measurement points within the plane. TPS and MC also showed good agreement with chamber measurements of absolute dose, with systematic differences of <1.5% for all range-shifter options.
conclusionsReliable independent verification of the TPS dose calculation is a valuable complement to physical PSQA and may facilitate reduction of the physical PSQA workload alongside a thorough delivery system quality assurance programme. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A Gate/Geant4-based MC system is thoroughly validated against an extensive physical PSQA dataset for 730 clinical fields, showing that clinical implementation of MC for PSQA is feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.