ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Dosimetric sensitivity of an enhanced leaf model (ELM) for individual versus averaged machines.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-institutional study of multileaf collimator parameters and dose calculation accuracy using the enhanced leaf model.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Evaluating Monaco 6.2.2 in complex radiotherapy across matched LINACs: improved MLC modelling and dose accuracy with virtual source model 2.0.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Dosimetric sensitivity of an enhanced leaf model (ELM) for individual versus averaged machines.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
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
backgroundWith the introduction of a new multi-leaf collimator (MLC) enhanced leaf model (ELM) in the Varian Eclipse™ treatment planning system, there is currently limited data regarding the dosimetric sensitivity to real-world variation in the ELM parameters, and its clinical relevance. PURPOSE: To characterize the variation in ELM parameters across a large department with ten linear accelerators and investigate the feasibility of using a single machine-averaged ELM for treatment planning. This could achieve time and resource savings from reduced quality assurance, while allowing easy transfer of patients between machines.
methodsClinical plans of a range of sites (head and neck, prostate, breast, lung, and brain), techniques (VMAT, IMRT, SBRT, and SRS), and energies (6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV, and 10 MV FFF) were recalculated on Varian TrueBeam™ (120 MLC) and Varian EDGE™ (HD120 MLC), with machine-specific ELM beam models, an averaged machine and an outlier machine model. A range of clinically relevant metrics relating to target coverage (e.g. PTV D
resultsFor the target metrics, the maximum percentage deviation from the mean was 0.422%, 0.157%, and 1.956% for the cases of the individual machines, the averaged machine and the outlier machine correspondingly, while the maximum absolute dose differences were 0.28 Gy, 0.07 Gy, and 0.38 Gy. For the OAR metrics, the maximum deviation from the mean was 1.833%, 0.204%, and 5.722% for the individual, averaged, and outlier machines, while the maximum absolute dose differences were 0.41 Gy, 0.10 Gy, and 0.97 Gy.
conclusionsFor machines that are well matched in terms of dosimetry for transmission and sweeping gap fields, the use of an averaged machine model is unlikely to introduce clinically significant dosimetric differences to treatment plans.
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.