Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39625056›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025

Commissioning and implementation of a pencil-beam algorithm with a Lorentz correction as a secondary dose calculation algorithm for an Elekta Unity 1.5T MR linear accelerator.

Sameer Taneja, Hesheng Wang, David L Barbee, Paulina Galavis, Mario Serrano Sosa, David Byun, Michael Zelefsky, Ting Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Sameer TanejaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Hesheng WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
David L BarbeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Paulina GalavisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Mario Serrano SosaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
David ByunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Michael ZelefskyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Ting ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo commission a beam model in ClearCalc (Radformation Inc.) for use as a secondary dose calculation algorithm and to implement its use into an adaptive workflow for an MR-linear accelerator.

methodsA beam model was developed using commissioning data for an Elekta Unity MR-linear accelerator and entered into ClearCalc. The beam model consisted of absolute dose calculation settings, output factors, percent depth-dose (PDD) curves, mutli-leaf collimator (MLC) transmission and dose leaf gap error, and cryostat corrections. Beam profiles were hard-coded by the manufacturer into the beam model and were compared with Monaco-derived profiles. The beam model was tested by comparing point doses in a homogenous phantom obtained through measurements using an ionization chamber in water, Monaco, and ClearCalc for various field sizes, source-surface distances (SSDs), and point locations. Additional testing including point dose verification for test plans using a heterogeneous phantom and patient plans. Post clinical implementation, performance of ClearCalc was evaluated for the first 41 patients treated, which included 215 adaptive plans.

resultsPDDs generated using ClearCalc fell within 1.2% of measurements. Field profile comparison between ClearCalc and Monaco showed an average pass rate of 98% using a 3%/3 mm gamma criteria. Measured cryostat corrections used in the beam model showed a maximum deviation from unity of 1.4%. Point dose and field monitor units (MUs) comparisons in a homogenous phantom (N = 22), heterogeneous phantoms (N = 22), and patient plans (N = 57) all passed with a threshold of 5%/5MU. Clinically, ClearCalc was implemented as a physics check post adaptive planning completed prior to beam delivery. Point dose and field MUs showed good agreement at a 5%/5MU threshold for prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), pelvic lymph nodes, rectum, and prostate and lymph node plans. DISCUSSION: This work demonstrated commissioning and clinical implementation of ClearCalc into an adaptive planning workflow. No primary or adaptive plan failures were reported with proper beam model testing.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingParticle AcceleratorsPhantoms, ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansMaleOrgans at RiskRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulatedadaptive therapydose calculationMR‐linac

Identifiers

PMID39625056
PMCPMC11905237

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.