ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2025
Sensitivity and specificity of Monte Carlo based independent secondary dose computation for detecting modulation-related dose errors in intensity modulated radiotherapy.
Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2025. 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.
- Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- A pathway away from measurement-based patient-specific QA: A review of contemporary quality assurance for external-beam radiotherapy sub-systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe recent availability of Monte Carlo based independent secondary dose calculation (ISDC) for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of modulated radiotherapy requires the definition of appropriate, more sensitive action levels, since contemporary recommendations were defined for less accurate ISDC dose algorithms. PURPOSE: The objective is to establish an optimum action level and measure the efficacy of a Monte Carlo ISDC software for pre-treatment QA of intensity modulated radiotherapy treatments.
methodsThe treatment planning system and the ISDC were commissioned by their vendors from independent base data sets, replicating a typical real-world scenario. In order to apply Receiver-Operator-Characteristics (ROC), a set of treatment plans for various case classes was created that consisted of 190 clinical treatment plans and 190 manipulated treatment plans with dose errors in the range of 1.5-2.5%. All 380 treatment plans were evaluated with ISDC in the patient geometry. ROC analysis was performed for a number of Gamma (dose-difference/distance-to-agreement) criteria. QA methods were ranked according to Area under the ROC curve (AUC) and optimum action levels were derived via Youden's J statistics.
resultsOverall, for original treatment plans, the mean Gamma pass rate (GPR) for Gamma(1%, 1 mm) was close to 90%, although with some variation across case classes. The best QA criterion was Gamma(2%, 1 mm) with GPR > 90% and an AUC of 0.928. Gamma criteria with small distance-to-agreement had consistently higher AUC. GPR of original treatment plans depended on their modulation degree. An action level in terms of Gamma(1%, 1 mm) GPR that decreases with modulation degree was the most efficient criterion with sensitivity = 0.91 and specificity = 0.95, compared with Gamma(3%, 3 mm) GPR > 99%, sensitivity = 0.73 and specificity = 0.91 as a commonly used action level.
conclusionsISDC with Monte Carlo proves highly efficient to catch errors in the treatment planning process. For a Monte Carlo based TPS, dose-difference criteria of 2% or less, and distance-to-agreement criteria of 1 mm, achieve the largest AUC in ROC analysis.
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.