Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38956685›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024

Clinical application of a GPU-accelerated monte carlo dose verification for cyberknife M6 with Iris collimator.

Peng Zhou, Yankui Chang, Shijun Li, Jia Luo, Lin Lei, Yufen Shang, Xi Pei, Qiang Ren, Chuan Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Peng Zhou *Department of Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yankui Chang *School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Shijun LiSchool of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Jia LuoDepartment of Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Lin LeiDepartment of Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yufen ShangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dezhou Second People's Hospital, Dezhou, China.
Xi PeiAnhui Wisdom Technology Company Limited, Hefei, China.
Qiang RenAnhui Wisdom Technology Company Limited, Hefei, China. sr_qren@163.com.
Chuan ChenDepartment of Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China. sinkriver@126.com.

Funding

Chongqing medical scientific research project (Joint project of Chongqing Health Commission and Science and Technology Bureau) 2022ZDXM027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo apply an independent GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) dose verification for CyberKnife M6 with Iris collimator and evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of RayTracing (TPS-RT) algorithm and Monte Carlo (TPS-MC) algorithm in the Precision treatment planning system (TPS).

methodsGPU-accelerated MC algorithm (ArcherQA-CK) was integrated into a commercial dose verification system, ArcherQA, to implement the patient-specific quality assurance in the CyberKnife M6 system. 30 clinical cases (10 cases in head, and 10 cases in chest, and 10 cases in abdomen) were collected in this study. For each case, three different dose calculation methods (TPS-MC, TPS-RT and ArcherQA-CK) were implemented based on the same treatment plan and compared with each other. For evaluation, the 3D global gamma analysis and dose parameters of the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed comparatively.

resultsFor gamma pass rates at the criterion of 2%/2 mm, the results were over 98.0% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in head cases, 84.9% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 98.0% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 83.3% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in chest cases, 98.2% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 99.4% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 94.5% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in abdomen cases. For dose parameters of planning target volume (PTV) in chest cases, the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and ArcherQA-CK vs. TPS-MC had significant difference (P < 0.01), and the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK were similar (P > 0.05). ArcherQA-CK had less calculation time compared with TPS-MC (1.66 min vs. 65.11 min).

conclusionsOur proposed MC dose engine (ArcherQA-CK) has a high degree of consistency with the Precision TPS-MC algorithm, which can quickly identify the calculation errors of TPS-RT algorithm for some chest cases. ArcherQA-CK can provide accurate patient-specific quality assurance in clinical practice.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMonte Carlo MethodOrgans at RiskRadiosurgeryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedComputer GraphicsHumansNeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedCyberKnifeGPU-accelerated Monte CarloPatient-specific quality assurance

Identifiers

PMID38956685
PMCPMC11221037

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.