Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35166011›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Commissioning a secondary dose calculation software for a 0.35 T MR-linac.

Alex T Price, Nels C Knutson, Taeho Kim, Olga L Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluation of QUASAR Insight Phantom for daily imaging QA of MRgRT linacs.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Commissioning a secondary dose calculation software for a 0.35 T MR-linac.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Alex T PriceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9054-6474
Nels C KnutsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Taeho KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Olga L GreenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Radiotherapy, Image-GuidedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansParticle AcceleratorsPhantoms, ImagingRadiotherapy DosageSoftwareMRgRTMRI-guided radiation therapyquality assurancesecondary dose calculations

Identifiers

PMID35166011
PMCPMC8906210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.