ArticleJournal of medical physics
Validation of the Elekta Synergy Platform Linac at 6 MV Photon Beam using PRIMO Monte Carlo Software.
Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The objective was to validate the initial beam parameters of the Davao Doctors Hospital's 6 MV Elekta Synergy Platform linac, which performs to the specification of the commissioning data per our records using the gamma-index analysis toolkit integrated inside PRIMO software. Materials and Methods: In PRIMO, a sequence of optimization processes is performed, in which the measured and simulated percent depth dose (PDD) and lateral beam profiles at various depths are compared, using the stringent gamma-index passing rate at 1%/1 mm criteria (GPR11). Using four fields of sizes 3 cm × 3 cm, 4 cm × 4 cm, 5 cm × 5 cm, and 10 cm × 10 cm, the dose is calculated on a water phantom measuring 16.2 cm × 16.2 cm × 30.0 cm. In addition, one field of size 20 cm × 20 cm is used on a 50.0 cm × 50.0 cm × 30.0 cm water phantom with a bin size of 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm × 0.2 cm at a source-surface distance of 100.0 cm. Results: For PDD and beam profiles comparison at the largest field size, the 6.5 MeV initial electron beam energy, 0.25 MeV full-width-half-maximum energy, 0.20 cm focal spot size, and 3° beam divergence tuned configuration yield GPR11 values of 94.0% and 97.7% (PRIMO PDD and lateral beam profile at 200 mm scan depth, respectively) with a statistical uncertainty of 2.9%. For lower field sizes, the GPR11 values are consistent at more than 90% for the PDD, whereas GPR11 values of 80.3% and 70.6% for the lateral beam profiles (at 15 mm and 200 mm scan depths) at 10 cm × 10 cm and 5 cm × 5 cm, respectively. The percentage difference between the measured and simulated Conclusions: These tuned beam parameters are remarkably in agreement with the suggested beam parameters listed on the PRIMO website for the 6 MV Elekta linac which was optimized with a different set of measurements.
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.