ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
An independent Monte Carlo-based IMRT QA tool for a 0.35 T MRI-guided linear accelerator.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the role of plan complexity metrics in online adaptive radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer patients.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Impact of magnetic fields on small field dosimetry for parallel MR-linacs.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Independent Monte Carlo dose calculation identifies single isocenter multi-target radiosurgery targets most likely to fail pre-treatment measurement.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- An independent Monte Carlo-based IMRT QA tool for a 0.35 T MRI-guided linear accelerator.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop an independent log file-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tool for the 0.35 T magnetic resonance-linac (MR-linac) and investigate the ability of various IMRT plan complexity metrics to predict the QA results. Complexity metrics related to tissue heterogeneity were also introduced.
methodsThe tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) Monte Carlo code was utilized with a previously validated linac head model. A cohort of 29 treatment plans was selected for IMRT QA using the developed QA tool and the vendor-supplied adaptive QA (AQA) tool. For 27 independent patient cases, various IMRT plan complexity metrics were calculated to assess the deliverability of these plans. A correlation between the gamma pass rates (GPRs) from the AQA results and calculated IMRT complexity metrics was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficients. Tissue heterogeneity complexity metrics were calculated based on the gradient of the Hounsfield units.
resultsThe median and interquartile range for the TOPAS GPRs (3%/3 mm criteria) were 97.24% and 3.75%, respectively, and were 99.54% and 0.36% for the AQA tool, respectively. The computational time for TOPAS ranged from 4 to 8 h to achieve a statistical uncertainty of <1.5%, whereas the AQA tool had an average calculation time of a few minutes. Of the 23 calculated IMRT plan complexity metrics, the AQA GPRs had correlations with 7 out of 23 of the calculated metrics. Strong correlations (|r| > 0.7) were found between the GPRs and the heterogeneity complexity metrics introduced in this work.
conclusionsAn independent MC and log file-based IMRT QA tool was successfully developed and can be clinically deployed for offline QA. The complexity metrics will supplement QA reports and provide information regarding plan complexity.
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.