Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33882242›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021

Effect of treatment planning system parameters on beam modulation complexity for treatment plans with single-layer multi-leaf collimator and dual-layer stacked multi-leaf collimator.

Paulo Quintero, Yongqiang Cheng, David Benoit, Craig Moore, Andrew Beavis

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Characterizing the interplay of treatment parameters and complexity and their impact on performance on an IROC IMRT phantom using machine learning.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paulo QuinteroMedical Physics Service, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6574-1828
Yongqiang ChengDepartment of Computer Science and Technology, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
David BenoitDepartment of Physics and Mathematics, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Craig MooreMedical Physics Service, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
Andrew BeavisMedical Physics Service, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
University of Hull · GBCastle Hill Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHigh levels of beam modulation complexity (MC) and monitor units (MU) can compromise the plan deliverability of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatments. Our study evaluates the effect of three treatment planning system (TPS) parameters on MC and MU using different multi-leaf collimator (MLC) architectures.

methods192 volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were calculated using one virtual prostate phantom considering three main settings: (1) three TPS-parameters (Convergence; Aperture Shape Controller, ASC; and Dose Calculation Resolution, DCR) selected from Eclipse v15.6, (2) four levels of dose-sparing priority for organs at risk (OAR), and (3) two treatment units with same nominal conformity resolution and different MLC architectures (Halcyon-v2 dual-layer MLC, DL-MLC & TrueBeam single-layer MLC, SL-MLC). We use seven complexity metrics to evaluate the MC, including two new metrics for DL-MLC, assessed by their correlation with γ passing rate (GPR) analysis.

resultsDL-MLC plans demonstrated lower dose-sparing values than SL-MLC plans (

conclusionsTPS-parameters selected do not change MC for DL-MLC architecture, but they might have a potential use to control the MU, PTV homogeneity or dose spillage for SL-MLC. Our new DL-MLC complexity metrics presented important information to be considered in future pre-treatment quality assurance programs. Finally, the prominent dependence between plan deliverability and priority applied to OAR dose sparing for DL-MLC needs to be analyzed and considered as an additional predictor of GPRs in further studies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Dose-sparing priority might influence in modulation complexity of DL-MLC.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAnisotropyHumansMaleOrgans at RiskPhantoms, ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy Dosage

Identifiers

PMID33882242
PMCPMC8173683
OpenAlexW3153941650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.