ArticleJournal of medical physics
Monte Carlo Modeling of Dynamic Tumor Tracking on a Gimbaled Linear Accelerator.
Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Four-dimensional treatment planning strategies for dynamic tumor tracking.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose and Aim: The Vero4DRT (Brainlab AG) linear accelerator is capable of dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) by panning/tilting the radiation beam to follow respiratory-induced tumor motion in real time. In this study, the panning/tilting motion is modeled in Monte Carlo (MC) for quality assurance (QA) of four-dimensional (4D) dose distributions created within the treatment planning system (TPS). Materials and Methods: Step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans were optimized for 10 previously treated liver patients. These plans were recalculated on multiple phases of a 4D computed tomography (4DCT) scan using MC while modeling panning/tilting. The dose distributions on each phase were accumulated to create a respiratory-weighted 4D dose distribution. Differences between the TPS and MC modeled doses were examined. Results: On average, 4D dose calculations in MC showed the maximum dose of an organ at risk (OAR) to be 10% greater than the TPS' three-dimensional dose calculation (collapsed cone [CC] convolution algorithm) predicted. MC's 4D dose calculations showed that 6 out of 24 OARs could exceed their specified dose limits, and calculated their maximum dose to be 4% higher on average (up to 13%) than the TPS' 4D dose calculations. Dose differences between MC and the TPS were greatest in the beam penumbra region. Conclusion: Modeling panning/tilting for DTT has been successfully modeled with MC and is a useful tool to QA respiratory-correlated 4D dose distributions. The dose differences between the TPS and MC calculations highlight the importance of using 4D MC to confirm the safety of OAR doses before DTT treatments.
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.