ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
Impact of Reference Selection on Gamma Analysis in Patient-Specific Quality Assurance for Monte Carlo-Based Treatment Planning Systems.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advanced dose calculation strategies for clinical linear accelerators: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur study aimed to establish a standardized methodology for selecting "reference" and "evaluated" distributions in gamma analysis for Monte Carlo (MC) based intensity modulated treatment plans. Evaluation of importance of reference selection in MC based and non MC based treatment planning systems were analysed using a study classification.
methodsThree categories were utilized to analyzed gamma passing rates across using different treatment planning systems (TPS) and detectors for thirty five patients. Category 1 utilized MC-based Monaco TPS plans and a 2 dimensional(2D) I'mRTMatriXX detector. Category 2 employed non-MC-based Eclipse TPS plans, assessed with a 2D I'mRTMatriXX detector. In Category 3, MC-based Monaco TPS plans were validated using a Dolphin detector. All plans were subjected to analysis using gamma criteria, which considered a dose difference of 3% and a distance to agreement of 3mm. Additionally, another set of gamma criteria was employed, with a dose difference of 3% and a distance to agreement of 2mm. An introduced Asymmetric factors in both 2D and 3D analysis will quantify the asymmetric nature of gamma based on the choice of "reference" distribution.
resultFor 2D Gamma analysis, MC-based Monaco TPS and I'mRTMatriXX showed a consistent positive Zk2D trend for all patients, with significant p-values below 0.01 for both gamma passing criteria. In contrast, non-MC based Eclipse TPS exhibited varied Zk2D results, with non-significant p-values. In 3D Gamma analysis, all patients exhibited positive Zk3D values with significant p-values below 0.01 when "references" were swapped. The Pearson correlation between asymmetricity and isodose volumes was notably high at 0.99 for both gamma criteria.
conclusionOur study highlights the imperative of using MC-based TPS as the definitive "reference" in gamma analysis for patient specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy, emphasizing that variations can mislead results, especially given gamma analysis's sensitivity to MC calculation noise.
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.