ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2025
Assessment of Dose Calculation Accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System for Effective Wedge Angle in Internal Wedged Fields using Two Different Analytical Methods.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2025. 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
Background: In radiotherapy, the accuracy of dose calculation systems plays a key role in the treatment of cancer patients. Objective: The current research aimed to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) in estimating the Effective Wedge Angle (EWA) using two different mathematical methods: Elekta formula and ICRU-24 formula. Material and Methods: In this experimental study, EWAs for different field sizes (5×5, 10×10, 15×15, 20×20, 25×25, and 30×30 cm Results: The planned and measured EWAs are consistent with the Elekta formula, and the error value was less than ±0.5 in all radiation fields and EWAs. In the ICRU-24 formula, the maximum deviation was ±2.6° between the computational and practical EWAs. Conclusion: The Elekta-based analytical method demonstrates a good agreement between planned and measured EWAs, while the ICRU-24 formula exhibited the greatest discrepancies.
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.