Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38289874›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

Independent Monte Carlo dose calculation identifies single isocenter multi-target radiosurgery targets most likely to fail pre-treatment measurement.

Brett Erickson, Yunfeng Cui, Markus Alber, Chunhao Wang, Fang Fang Yin, John Kirkpatrick, Justus Adamson

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Brett EricksonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Yunfeng CuiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Markus AlberScientific RT, Munich, Germany.
Chunhao WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Fang Fang YinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
John KirkpatrickDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Justus AdamsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFor individual targets of single isocenter multi-target (SIMT) Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), we assess dose difference between the treatment planning system (TPS) and independent Monte Carlo (MC), and demonstrate persistence into the pre-treatment Quality Assurance (QA) measurement.

methodsTreatment plans from 31 SIMT SRS patients were recalculated in a series of scenarios designed to investigate sources of discrepancy between TPS and independent MC. Targets with > 5% discrepancy in DMean[Gy] after progressing through all scenarios were measured with SRS MapCHECK. A matched pair analysis was performed comparing SRS MapCHECK results for these targets with matched targets having similar characteristics (volume & distance from isocenter) but no such MC dose discrepancy.

resultsOf 217 targets analyzed, individual target mean dose (DMean[Gy]) fell outside a 5% threshold for 28 and 24 targets before and after removing tissue heterogeneity effects, respectively, while only 5 exceeded the threshold after removing effect of patient geometry (via calculation on StereoPHAN geometry). Significant factors affecting agreement between the TPS and MC included target distance from isocenter (0.83% decrease in DMean[Gy] per 2 cm), volume (0.15% increase per cc), and degree of plan modulation (0.37% increase per 0.01 increase in modulation complexity score). SRS MapCHECK measurement had better agreement with MC than with TPS (2%/1 mm / 10% threshold gamma pass rate (GPR) = 99.4 ± 1.9% vs. 93.1 ± 13.9%, respectively). In the matched pair analysis, targets exceeding 5% for MC versus TPS also had larger discrepancies between TPS and measurement with no GPR (2%/1 mm / 10% threshold) exceeding 90% (71.5% ± 16.1%); whereas GPR was high for matched targets with no such MC versus TPS difference (96.5% ± 3.3%, p = 0.01).

conclusionsIndependent MC complements pre-treatment QA measurement for SIMT SRS by identifying problematic individual targets prior to pre-treatment measurement, thus enabling plan modifications earlier in the planning process and guiding selection of targets for pre-treatment QA measurement.

Indexed as

Monte Carlo MethodQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsHumansNeoplasmsOrgans at Riskdosimetric robustnessquality assurancesingle isocenter multi‐target radiosurgery

Identifiers

PMID38289874
PMCPMC11163499

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.