ArticleJournal of medical physics
Commissioning of the First MRlinac in Latin America.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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.
- Commissioning of a Commercial Secondary Dose Check Software and Clinical Implementation for the Magnetic Resonance-guided Linear Accelerator Adaptive Workflow.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Development and Validation of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Adaptive Radiotherapy Workflow for Long, Continuous Planning Target Volumes.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To show the workflow for the commissioning of a MRlinac, and some proposed tests; off-axis targets, output factors for small fields, dose in inhomogeneities, and multileaf collimator quality assurance (MLC QA). Methods: The tests were performed based on TG-142, TG-119, ICRU 97, TRS-398, and TRS-483 recommendations as well as national regulations for radiation protection and safety. Results: The imaging tests are in agreement with the protocols. The radiation isocenter was 0.34 mm, and for off-axis targets location was up to 0.88 mm. The dose profiles measured and calculated in treatment planning system (TPS) passed in all cases the gamma analysis of 2%/2 mm (global dose differences). The output factors of fields larger than 2 cm × 2 cm are in agreement with the model of the MRlinac in the TPS. However, for smaller fields, their differences are higher than 10%. Picket fence test for different gantry angles showed a maximum leaf deviation up to 0.2 mm. Displacements observed in treatment couch adding weight (50 kg) are lower than 1 mm. Cryostat, bridge, and couch attenuation was up to 1.2%, 10%, and 24%, respectively. Conclusion: The implemented tests confirm that the studied MRlinac agrees with the standards reported in the literature and that the strict tolerances established as a baseline should allow a smoother implementation of stereotactic treatments in this machine.
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.