ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024
Monte Carlo simulation of the Varian TrueBeam flattened-filtered beams using a surrogate geometry in PRIMO.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundMonte Carlo simulation of radiation transport for medical linear accelerators (linacs) requires accurate knowledge of the geometrical description of the linac head. Since the geometry of Varian TrueBeam machines has not been disclosed, the manufacturer distributes phase-space files of the linac patient-independent part to allow researchers to compute absorbed dose distributions using the Monte Carlo method. This approach limits the possibility of achieving an arbitrarily small statistical uncertainty. This work investigates the use of the geometry of the Varian Clinac 2100, which is included in the Monte Carlo system PRIMO, as a surrogate.
methodsEnergy, radial and angular distributions extracted from the TrueBeam phase space files published by the manufacturer and from phase spaces tallied with PRIMO for the Clinac 2100 were compared for the 6, 8, 10 and 15 MV flattened-filtered beams. Dose distributions in water computed for the two sets of PSFs were compared with the Varian Representative Beam Data (RBD) for square fields with sides ranging from 3 to 30 cm. Output factors were calculated for square fields with sides ranging from 2 to 40 cm.
resultsExcellent agreement with the RBD was obtained for the simulations that employed the phase spaces distributed by Varian as well as for those that used the surrogate geometry, reaching in both cases Gamma ([Formula: see text], 2 mm) pass rates larger than [Formula: see text], except for the 15 MV surrogate. This result supports previous investigations that suggest a change in the material composition of the TrueBeam 15 MV flattening filter. In order to get the said agreement, PRIMO simulations were run using enlarged transport parameters to compensate the discrepancies between the actual and surrogate geometries.
conclusionsThis work sustains the claim that the simulation of the 6, 8 and 10 MV flattening-filtered beams of the TrueBeam linac can be performed using the Clinac 2100 model of PRIMO without significant loss of accuracy.
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.