ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Transmission probability filter optimization for Agility MLC in Monaco treatment planning system.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Monaco 6.2.2 in complex radiotherapy across matched LINACs: improved MLC modelling and dose accuracy with virtual source model 2.0.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Transmission probability filter optimization for Agility MLC in Monaco treatment planning system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Practice and Evaluation of Competence in the Application of Monaco Planning System in Undergraduate Radiotherapy Internship Teaching: A Randomized Controlled Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system (TPS) Monaco, transmission probability filters (TPF) are utilized to describe the transmission through the multi leaf collimator (MLC). By having knowledge of the TPF parameters for various photon beam energies, adjusting the MLC transmission parameters becomes easier, enhancing the accuracy of the Monte Carlo algorithm in achieving a dose distribution that closely aligns with the irradiated dose at the Versa HD linear accelerator (linac). The objective of this study was to determine the TPF parameters for 6MV, 10MV, 6MV flattening filter free (FFF) and 10MV FFF for a Versa HD linac equipped with Agility MLC. The TPF parameters were adjusted using point dose measurements and vendor-provided fields specifically designed to fine-tune the MLC. After adjusting the TPF parameters, a gamma passing rate (GPR) analysis was conducted on 25 treatment plans to ensure that the Monte Carlo model, with the updated TPF parameters, accurately matched the actual linac delivery. The TPF values ranged from 0.0018 to 0.0032 for leaf transmission and 1.15 to 1.25 for Leaf Tip leakage across the different energies. The average GPR ranged from 97.8% for 10MV FFF to 98.5% for 6MV photon energies. Additionally, the TPF parameters for 6MV obtained in this study were consistent with previously published TPF values for 6MV photon energy. Hence, it was concluded that optimizing the TPF does not need to be performed for every individual Versa HD linac with Agility MLC. Instead, the published parameters can be applied to other Versa HD linacs to enhance clinical accuracy. In conclusion, this study determined the TPF parameters for 6MV and previously unpublished photon energies 10MV, 6MV FFF and 10MV FFF. These parameters can be easily transferred to other facilities, resulting in improved agreement between the dose distribution from the TPS and the linac.
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.