ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Beam model development and clinical experience with RadCalc for treatment plan quality assurance in online adaptive workflow with an MR-linac.
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 1 paper.
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.
- Beam model development and clinical experience with RadCalc for treatment plan quality assurance in online adaptive workflow with an MR-linac.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this work was to report on the optimization, commissioning, and validation of a beam model using a commercial independent dose verification software RadCalc version 7.2 (Lifeline Software Inc, Tyler, TX, USA), along with 4 years of experience employing RadCalc for offline and online monitor unit (MU) verification on the Elekta Unity MR-linac (MRL) for a range of clinical sites.
methodsCalculation settings and model parameters, including the Clarkson integration settings and radiation/light field offset, have been systematically examined and optimized, and pitfalls in the use of density inhomogeneity corrections and in off-axis calculations were investigated and addressed. The resulting model was commissioned by comparing RadCalc calculations to measurements for a variety of cases, selected following relevant recommendations, ranging from simple fields in a water tank to end-to-end point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic phantom.
resultsFor simple geometries, the agreement was within 2%, and for complex geometries, within 5%. When validating against the Monaco (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) treatment planning system (TPS), for 39 clinical commissioning plans, the mean total point dose difference was -0.3 ± 0.8% (-2.0%-1.1%). Finally, when applied retrospectively to 4085 clinical plan calculations, the agreement with the TPS was 0.3 ± 1.1% (-4.8%-4.2%), with fail rates of 0.1% for total point dose (discrepancy > 4%) and 0.3% for individual fields (discrepancy > 10%).
conclusionsImproved calculation agreement with the TPS and therefore increased confidence in the online QA, opened the way for an automated and physics-light independent MU verification workflow within our MRL program.
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.