ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2023
Comparison of the accuracy of Monte Carlo and Ray Tracing dose calculation algorithms for multiple target brain treatments on CyberKnife.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2023. 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.
- Increasing demands on commissioning and quality assurance for cone-based multiple brain metastases robotic radiosurgery: evaluation in a custom phantom.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- A glimpse into the CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery system: technical specifications and developments during thirty years.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single plan multiple brain targets (MBT) stereotactic radiosurgery dose difference between Monte Carlo (MC) and Ray Tracing (RT) algorithms has not been studied. A retrospective study and dose measurements were performed to access factors influencing dose differences. Fifty-three RT treatment plans with a total of 209 brain metastases were extracted from Precision Treatment Planning System (TPS). These plans were generated using fixed cones and were delivered using the CyberKnife M6 system. The same treatment plans were recalculated using MC algorithm and keeping the beam parameters unchanged. MC calculated plan parameters were extracted and dose differences were normalised to MC calculated dose. Correlations were investigated. RT and MC calculated off-centre-ratio (OCR) and tissue-phantom-ratio (TPRs) were exported from the TPS and compared with measured. Plans with 5 gross tumour volumes (GTVs) were created on a phantom and dose measured using a CC04 ionisation chamber and microdiamond detector for comparison with calculated doses. Calculated and measured TPR agreed within ± 1% beyond depth of maximum dose. The OCR showed differences up to 4.3% in the penumbra and out-of-field (OOF) regions. Largest RT and MC calculated GTV mean dose difference was - 5.7%. An increase in the number of GTVs and reduction in the geometric separation of metastases were associated with increased differences between RT and MC calculated doses. In conclusion, calculated dose disagreement in MBT depends on the number of GTVs per plan, number of GTVs within a certain separation distance and plan complexity. MC dose calculation is recommended for complex CyberKnife SRS of MBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37552365What 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.