Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37722769›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

Dosimetric impact of MLC positional errors on dose distribution in IMRT.

Hiromi Enomoto, Yukio Fujita, Saki Matsumoto, Yujiro Nakajima, Miyuki Nagai, Ayako Tonari, Takeshi Ebara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Dosimetric impact of MLC positional errors on dose distribution in IMRT.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hiromi EnomotoDepartment of Radiology, Kyorin University Hospital, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2165-4831
Yukio FujitaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Komazawa University, Setagaya, Tokyo, Japan.
Saki MatsumotoDepartment of Radiology, Kyorin University Hospital, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.
Yujiro NakajimaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Komazawa University, Setagaya, Tokyo, Japan.
Miyuki NagaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kyorin University, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.
Ayako TonariDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kyorin University, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.
Takeshi EbaraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kyorin University, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyorin UniversityKomazawa University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimizing the positional accuracy of multileaf collimators (MLC) for radiotherapy is important for dose accuracy and for reducing doses delivered to normal tissues. This study investigates dose sensitivity variations and complexity metrics of MLC positional error in volumetric modulated arc therapy and determines the acceptable ranges of MLC positional accuracy in several clinical situations. Treatment plans were generated for four treatment sites (prostate cancer, lung cancer, spinal, and brain metastases) using different treatment planning systems (TPSs) and fraction sizes. Each treatment plan introduced 0.25-2.0 mm systematic or random MLC leaf bank errors. The generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) sensitivity and complexity metrics (MU/Gy and plan irregularity) were calculated, and the correlation coefficients were assessed. Furthermore, the required tolerances for MLC positional accuracy control were calculated. The gEUD sensitivity showed the highest dependence of systematic positional error on the treatment site, followed by TPS and fraction size. The gEUD sensitivities were 6.7, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.7%/mm for Monaco and 8.9, 6.2, 3.4, and 2.3%/mm (spinal metastasis, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and brain metastasis, respectively) for RayStation. The gEUD sensitivity was strongly correlated with the complexity metrics (r = 0.88-0.93). The minimum allowable positional error for MLC was 0.63, 0.34, 1.02, and 0.28 mm (prostate, lung, brain, and spinal metastasis, respectively). The acceptable range of MLC positional accuracy depends on the treatment site, and an appropriate tolerance should be set for each treatment site with reference to the complexity metric. It is expected to enable easier and more detailed MLC positional accuracy control than before by reducing dose errors to patients at the treatment planning stage and by controlling MLC quality based on complexity metrics, such as MU/Gy.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedSpinal NeoplasmsHumansMaleRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisteddose errorMLC positional errorplan complexityplanningVMAT

Identifiers

PMID37722769
PMCPMC10860456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.