ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Evaluation of the accuracy of an enhanced MLC leaf model for Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dose accuracy evaluation of multi-leaf collimator modeling in single-isocenter multi-target stereotactic radiosurgery.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Dose calculation errors for volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of various complexity.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Benchmarking a new radiochromic film type for photon and proton beam dosimetry.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy of an enhanced MLC leaf model for Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFor LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatments, the binary MLC models utilizing single dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) parameters in Eclipse versions prior to v18 can result in imperfect agreement between measured and calculated doses, increased commissioning complexity, and user-dependent variability. This study aims to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of the enhanced leaf model (ELM) in Eclipse version 18.0, which incorporates the actual rounded-end MLC design in dose calculations.
methodsELM parameters were determined from measurements and configuration in a test Eclipse v18.0 system for an Edge LINAC with High Definition MLC (HDMLC) and a TrueBeam LINAC with the Millennium 120-leaf MLC (M120). The anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) was used to calculate doses for both 10FFF and 6FFF energies. The v18 ELM model was compared to the current version 16.1 (v16) model, which utilized single DLG parameter. Dose calculations were performed and compared for (1) static small on-axis fields, (2) static small off-axis fields, (3) single-isocenter single-target (SIST) HyperArc plans, and (4) single-isocenter multiple-target (SIMT) HyperArc plans. Gafchromic EBT4 film and myQA SRS device were used for dose verification.
resultsThe measurement required for ELM was similar to that of the original DLG, but ELM configuration provided significant time savings. The measurements showed comparable or improved accuracy with the ELM model for both static fields and patient-specific plans. A significant improvement in dose calculation accuracy was observed with the ELM particularly for SIMT patients with a large number of small targets.
conclusionThe new ELM introduced in Eclipse v18 substantially improves efficiency and consistency of the modeling process in the Eclipse dose calculation algorithm while maintaining comparable or superior accuracy for Linac-based SRS.
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.