ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Commissioning a secondary dose calculation software for a 0.35 T MR-linac.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. 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.
- Evaluation of QUASAR Insight Phantom for daily imaging QA of MRgRT linacs.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Beam model development and clinical experience with RadCalc for treatment plan quality assurance in online adaptive workflow with an MR-linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Feasibility of Monte Carlo-based patient-specific quality assurance in 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance-guided online adaptive radiotherapy: a multi-institutional study.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Commissioning and implementation of a pencil-beam algorithm with a Lorentz correction as a secondary dose calculation algorithm for an Elekta Unity 1.5T MR linear accelerator.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Multi-institutional questionnaire-based survey on online adaptive radiotherapy performed using commercial systems in Japan in 2023.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Article
- An integrated and fast imaging quality assurance phantom for a 0.35 T magnetic resonance imaging linear accelerator.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Commissioning a secondary dose calculation software for a 0.35 T MR-linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Secondary external dose calculations for a 0.35 T magnetic resonance image-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) are needed within the radiation oncology community to follow safety standards set forth within the field. We evaluate the commercially available software, RadCalc, in its ability to accurately perform monitor unit dose calculations within a magnetic field. We also evaluate the potential effects of a 0.35 T magnetic field upon point dose calculations. Monitor unit calculations were evaluated with (wMag) and without (noMag) a magnetic field considerations in RadCalc for the ViewRay MRIdian. The magnetic field is indirectly accounted for by using asymmetric profiles for calculation. The introduction of double-stacked multi-leaf collimator leaves was also included in the monitor unit calculations and a single transmission value was determined. A suite of simple and complex geometries with a variety field arrangements were calculated for each method to demonstrate the effect of the 0.35 T magnetic field on monitor unit calculations. Finally, 25 patient-specific treatment plans were calculated using each method for comparison. All simple geometries calculated in RadCalc were within 2% of treatment planning system (TPS) values for both methods, except for a single noMag off-axis comparison. All complex muilt-leaf collimator (MLC) pattern calculations were within 5%. All complex phantom geometry calculations were within 5% except for a single field within a lung phantom at a distal point. For the patient calculations, the noMag method average percentage difference was 0.09 ± 2.5% and the wMag average percentage difference was 0.08 ± 2.5%. All results were within 5% for the wMag method. We performed monitor unit calculations for a 0.35 T MRgRT system using a commercially available secondary monitor unit dose calculation software and demonstrated minimal impact of the 0.35 T magnetic field on monitor unit dose calculations. This is the first investigation demonstrating successful calculations of dose using RadCalc in the low-field 0.35 T ViewRay MRIdian system.
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.