ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Validation of an in vivo transit dosimetry algorithm using Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements.
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 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining optimal transit dosimetry gamma parameter values for the detection of failure modes using receiver operating curve analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Validation of an in vivo transit dosimetry algorithm using Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements.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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTransit dosimetry is a safety tool based on the transit images acquired during treatment. Forward-projection transit dosimetry software, as PerFRACTION, compares the transit images acquired with an expected image calculated from the DICOM plan, the CT, and the structure set. This work aims to validate PerFRACTION expected transit dose using PRIMO Monte Carlo simulations and ionization chamber measurements, and propose a methodology based on MPPG5a report.
methodsThe validation process was divided into three groups of tests according to MPPG5a: basic dose validation, IMRT dose validation, and heterogeneity correction validation. For the basic dose validation, the fields used were the nine fields needed to calibrate PerFRACTION and three jaws-defined. For the IMRT dose validation, seven sweeping gaps fields, the MLC transmission and 29 IMRT fields from 10 breast treatment plans were measured. For the heterogeneity validation, the transit dose of these fields was studied using three phantoms: 10 , 30 , and a 3 cm cork slab placed between 10 cm of solid water. The PerFRACTION expected doses were compared with PRIMO Monte Carlo simulation results and ionization chamber measurements.
resultsUsing the 10 cm solid water phantom, for the basic validation fields, the root mean square (RMS) of the difference between PerFRACTION and PRIMO simulations was 0.6%. In the IMRT fields, the RMS of the difference was 1.2%. When comparing respect ionization chamber measurements, the RMS of the difference was 1.0% both for the basic and the IMRT validation. The average passing rate with a γ(2%/2 mm, TH = 20%) criterion between PRIMO dose distribution and PerFRACTION expected dose was 96.0% ± 5.8%.
conclusionWe validated PerFRACTION calculated transit dose with PRIMO Monte Carlo and ionization chamber measurements adapting the methodology of the MMPG5a report. The methodology presented can be applied to validate other forward-projection transit dosimetry software.
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.