Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39190567›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024

Commissioning and validation of a single photon beam model in RayStation for multiple matched Elekta Linacs.

Lin Su, Ellen Huang, Devin A Miles, Reza Farjam, Ian R Marsh, Qiongge Li, Joseph A Moore, Todd R McNutt, Kai Ding, Ken Kang-Hsin Wang and 10 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

20 authors.

Lin SuDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ellen HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Devin A MilesDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8282-6660
Reza FarjamDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ian R MarshDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Qiongge LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Joseph A MooreDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4461-1666
Todd R McNuttDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Kai DingDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ken Kang-Hsin WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Adam RobinsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Gregory KuriDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Richard SeabreaseDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
David P AdamDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ryan OglesbyDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Bin ShenDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Binbin WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Junghoon LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3004-8625
Xun JiaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Sarah Han-OhDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA single treatment planning system (TPS) model for matched linacs provides flexible clinical workflows from patient treatment to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) measurement. Since general guidelines for building a single TPS model and its validation for matched linacs are not well established, we present our RayStation photon TPS modeling strategy for matched Elekta VersaHD linacs.

methodThe four linacs installed from 2013 to 2020 were matched in terms of Percent Depth Dose (PDD), profile, output factor and wedge factors for 6-MV, 10-MV, 15-MV, and 6-MV-FFF, and maintained following TG-142 recommendations until RayStation commissioning. The RayStation single model was built to represent all four linacs within the tolerance limits recommended by MPPG-5.a. The comprehensive validation tests were performed for one linac following MPPG-5.a and TG-119 guidelines, and spot checks for the other three. Our TPS modeling/validation method was evaluated by re-analyzing the previous 103 patient-specific IMRT/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA measurements with the calculated planar doses by the single model in comparison with the analysis results using four individual Pinnacle TPS models.

resultsFor all energies, our single model PDDs were within 1% agreement of the four-linac commissioning measurements. The MPPG-5.a validation tests from 5.1 through 7.5 and all TG-119 measurements passed within the recommended tolerance limits. The IMRT QA results (mean ± standard deviation) for RayStation single model versus Pinnacle individual models were 98.9% ± 1.3% and 98.0% ± 1.4% for 6-MV, 99.9% ± 0.1% and 99.1% ± 1.9% for 10-MV, and 98.2% ± 1.3% and 97.9% ± 1.8% for 6-MV-FFF, respectively.

conclusionWe successfully built and validated a single photon beam model in RayStation for four Elekta Linacs. The proposed new validation methods were proven to be both efficient and effective.

Indexed as

Particle AcceleratorsPhotonsQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansNeoplasmsPhantoms, Imagingmatched linacsRayStationsingle beam modelTPS modeling and validation

Identifiers

PMID39190567
PMCPMC11466464

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.