Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38390588›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024

Improving the modelling of a multi-leaf collimator with tilted leaf sides used in radiotherapy.

Mohammad Hussein, Agnes Angerud, Jordi Saez, Evelien Bogaert, Matthieu Lemire, Miriam Barry, Ileana Silvestre Patallo, David Shipley, Catharine H Clark, Victor Hernandez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Mohammad HusseinMetrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.
Agnes AngerudRaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jordi SaezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Evelien BogaertDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.
Matthieu LemireCIUSSS de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Miriam BarryMetrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.
Ileana Silvestre PatalloMetrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.
David ShipleyMetrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.
Catharine H ClarkMetrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.
Victor HernandezDepartment of Medical Physics, Hospital Sant Joan de Reus, IISPV, Tarragona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) with tilted leaf sides have a complex transmission behaviour that is not easily matched by radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs). We sought to develop an MLC model that can accurately match test fields and clinically relevant plans at different centres. Materials and methods: Two new MLC models were developed and evaluated within a research version of a commercial TPS. Prototype I used adjusted-constant transmissions and Prototype II used variable transmissions at the tongue-and-groove and leaf-tip regions. Three different centres evaluated these prototypes for a tilted MLC and compared them with their initial MLC model using test fields and patient-specific quality-assurance measurements of clinically relevant plans. For the latter, gamma passing rates (GPR) at 2 %/2mm were recorded. Results: For the prototypes the same set of MLC parameters could be used at all centres, with only a slight adjustment of the offset parameter. For centres A and C, average GPR were >95 % and within 0.5 % GPR difference between the standard, and prototype models. In center B, prototypes I and II improved the agreement in clinically relevant plans, with an increase in GPR of 2.3 % ± 0.8 % and 3.0 ± 0.8 %, respectively. Conclusions: The prototype MLC models were either similar or superior to the initial MLC model, and simpler to configure because fewer trade-offs were required. Prototype I performed comparably to the more sophisticated Prototype II and its configuration can be easily standardized, which can be useful to reduce variability and improve safety in clinical practice.

Indexed as

MLC modellingTPS commissioningTPS modelling

Identifiers

PMID38390588
PMCPMC10881418

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.