ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2022
Monte Carlo simulation of linac using PRIMO.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2022. 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.
- Enhancing dosimetric precision in the treatment of cancerous tumors: Gamma Index validation and Monte Carlo simulations of 6 and 12 megavoltage photon beams from Varian Medical linear accelerators.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- FLASH Radiotherapy and the Use of Radiation Dosimeters.Cancers · 2023Review
- Monte Carlo Simulation for the Radixact™ Tomotherapy Linac Using EGSnrc.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- PRIMO Monte Carlo Simulation and One-dimensional Gamma Index Analysis as a Tool to Validate Experimentally Measured Beam Data and Treatment Planning System Calculated Dose Distribution.Journal of medical physicsArticle
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
backgroundMonte Carlo simulation is considered as the most accurate method for dose calculation in radiotherapy. PRIMO is a Monte-Carlo program with a user-friendly graphical interface. MATERIAL AND
methodA VitalBeam with 6MV and 6MV flattening filter free (FFF), equipped with the 120 Millennium multileaf collimator was simulated by PRIMO. We adjusted initial energy, energy full width at half maximum (FWHM), focal spot FWHM, and beam divergence to match the measurements. The water tank and ion-chamber were used in the measurement. Percentage depth dose (PDD) and off axis ratio (OAR) were evaluated with gamma passing rates (GPRs) implemented in PRIMO. PDDs were matched at different widths of standard square fields. OARs were matched at five depths. Transmission factor and dose leaf gap (DLG) were simulated. DLG was measured by electronic portal imaging device using a sweeping gap method.
resultFor the criterion of 2%/2 mm, 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm, the GPRs of 6MV PDD were 99.33-100%, 99-100%, and 99-100%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV FFF PDD were 99.33-100%, 98.99-99.66%, and 97.64-98.99%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV OAR were 96.4-100%, 90.99-100%, and 85.12-98.62%, respectively; the GPRs of 6MV FFF OAR were 95.15-100%, 89.32-100%, and 87.02-99.74%, respectively. The calculated DLG matched well with the measurement (6MV: 1.36 mm vs. 1.41 mm; 6MV FFF: 1.07 mm vs. 1.03 mm, simulation vs measurement). The transmission factors were similar (6MV: 1.25% vs. 1.32%; 6MV FFF: 0.8% vs. 1.12%, simulation vs measurement).
conclusionThe calculated PDD, OAR, DLG and transmission factor were all in good agreement with measurements. PRIMO is an independent (with respect to analytical dose calculation algorithm) and accurate Monte Carlo tool.
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.