ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Validation of a secondary dose check tool against Monte Carlo and analytical clinical dose calculation algorithms in VMAT.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- An ion treatment planning framework for inclusion of nanodosimetric ionization detail through cluster dose.Medical physics · 2026Article
- A pathway away from measurement-based patient-specific QA: A review of contemporary quality assurance for external-beam radiotherapy sub-systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Geometry-encoded deep learning (GeoDL) framework for real-time 3D dose verification for online adaptive radiotherapy.Machine learning. Health · 2025Article
- Safety in MR-enhanced daily adaptive SBRT Radiotherapy using a conventional C-arm linear accelerator: An FMEA approach.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- Quality assurance for online adaptive radiotherapy: a secondary dose verification model with geometry-encoded U-Net.Machine learning: science and technology · 2024Article
- Is it necessary to perform measurement-based patient-specific quality assurance for online adaptive radiotherapy with Elekta Unity MR-Linac?Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Sensitivity and specificity of secondary dose calculation for head and neck treatment plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Monte Carlo modelling and validation of the elekta synergy medical linear accelerator equipped with radiosurgical cones.Heliyon · 2023Article
- ExtendingPhysics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Correlation between the γ passing rates of IMRT plans and the volumes of air cavities and bony structures in head and neck cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of 4-Hz log files and secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation as patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT prostate plans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Commissioning of a Commercial Secondary Dose Check Software and Clinical Implementation for the Magnetic Resonance-guided Linear Accelerator Adaptive Workflow.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Optimizing Patient-specific Quality Assurance Workload with Neural Network Analysis of Log Files and Complexity Indices.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- DeltaJournal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatient-specific quality assurance (QA) is very important in radiotherapy, especially for patients with highly conformed treatment plans like VMAT plans. Traditional QA protocols for these plans are time-consuming reducing considerably the time available for patient treatments. In this work, a new MC-based secondary dose check software (SciMoCa) is evaluated and benchmarked against well-established TPS (Monaco and Pinnacle
methodsFifty VMAT plans have been computed using same calculation parameters with SciMoCa and the two primary TPSs. Plans were validated with measurements performed with a 3D diode detector (ArcCHECK) by translating patient plans to phantom geometry. Calculation accuracy was assessed by measuring point dose differences and gamma passing rates (GPR) from a 3D gamma analysis with 3%-2 mm criteria. Comparison between SciMoCa and primary TPS calculations was made using the same estimators and using both patient and phantom geometry plans.
resultsTPS and SciMoCa calculations were found to be in very good agreement with validation measurements with average point dose differences of 0.7 ± 1.7% and -0.2 ± 1.6% for SciMoCa and two TPSs, respectively. Comparison between SciMoCa calculations and the two primary TPS plans did not show any statistically significant difference with average point dose differences compatible with zero within error for both patient and phantom geometry plans and GPR (98.0 ± 3.0% and 99.0 ± 3.0% respectively) well in excess of the typical
conclusionThis work presents results obtained with a significantly larger sample than other similar analyses and, to the authors' knowledge, compares SciMoCa with a MC-based TPS for the first time. Results show that a MC-based secondary patient-specific QA is a clinically viable, reliable, and promising technique, that potentially allows significant time saving that can be used for patient treatment and a per-plan basis QA that effectively complements traditional commissioning and calibration protocols.
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.