Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35359395›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Integration of an Independent Monitor Unit Check for High-Magnetic-Field MR-Guided Radiation Therapy System.

Jie Yang, Pengpeng Zhang, Neelam Tyagi, Paola Godoy Scripes, Ergys Subashi, Jiayi Liang, Dale Lovelock, James Mechalakos, Anyi Li, Seng B Lim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Risk analysis of the Unity 1.5 T MR-Linac adapt-to-position workflow.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023
    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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jie YangDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Pengpeng ZhangDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Neelam TyagiDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Paola Godoy ScripesDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Ergys SubashiDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Jiayi LiangDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Dale LovelockDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
James MechalakosDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Anyi LiDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Seng B LimDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Commercial independent monitor unit (IMU) check systems for high-magnetic-field MR-guided radiation therapy (RT) systems are lacking. We investigated the feasibility of adopting an existing treatment planning system (TPS) as an IMU check for online adaptive radiotherapy using 1.5-Tesla MR-Linac. Methods: The 7-MV flattening filter free (FFF) beam and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) models of a 1.5-T Elekta Unity MR-Linac within Monte Carlo-based Monaco TPS were used to generate an optimized beam model in Eclipse TPS. The MLC dosimetric leaf gap of the beam in Eclipse was determined by matching the dose distribution of Eclipse-generated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans using the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) algorithm to Monaco plans. The plans were automatically adjusted for different source-to-axis distances (SADs) between the two systems. For IMU check, the treatment plans developed in Monaco were transferred to Eclipse to recalculate the dose using AAA. A plug-in within Eclipse was created to perform a 2D gamma analysis of the AAA and Monte Carlo dose distribution on a beam's eye view parallel plane. Monaco dose distribution was shifted laterally by 2 mm during gamma analysis to account for the impact of magnetic field on electron trajectories. Eclipse doses for posterior beams were corrected for both the Unity couch and the posterior MR coil attenuation. Thirteen patients, each with 4-5 fractions for a variety of tumor sites (pancreas, rectum, and prostate), were tested. Results: After thorough commissioning, the method was implemented as part of the standard clinical workflow. A total of 62 online plans, each with approximately 15 beams, were evaluated. The average per-beam gamma (3%/3 mm) pass rate for plans was 97.9% (range, 95.9% to 98.8%). The average pass rate per beam for all 932 beams used in these plans was 97.9% ± 1.9%, with the lowest per-beam gamma pass rate at 88.4%. The time for the process was within 3.2 ± 0.9 min. Conclusion: The use of a second planning system provides an efficient way to perform IMU checks with clinically acceptable accuracy for online adaptive plans on Unity MR-Linac. This is essential for meeting the safety requirements for second checks as outlined in American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (AAPM TG) reports 114 and 219.

Indexed as

1.5-T MRElekta UnityMR-LinacMU checkonline adaptive plan

Identifiers

PMID35359395
PMCPMC8963466
OpenAlexW4220686335

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.