ArticlePloS one2025
Dosimetric comparison of Monte Carlo, Acuros XB, and anisotropic analytical algorithm for lung cancer plans on halcyon accelerators.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
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
This study evaluates the differences in application of the RayStation Monte Carlo algorithm (RMC) compared to Acuros XB (AXB) and the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in Eclipse for conventional radiotherapy planning of lung cancer using the novel ring-shaped Halcyon accelerator. A total of 63 non-small-cell lung cancer patients were retrospectively included, with a prescription dose of 60 Gy delivered in 30 fractions. Radiotherapy plans were initially designed and optimized in RayStation, then recalculated in Eclipse using AXB and AAA to assess algorithmic differences in dose distributions. Analysis of data from 63 patients, combined with simulations using square fields and cylindrical water phantoms, revealed that RMC and AXB achieved high consistency in target dose coverage and conformity. High-dose indicators, such as D2% and D0.03cc, showed close agreement between RMC and AAA, while AXB tended to slightly underestimate peak doses. For prescription dose coverage metrics like D95% and D98%, the difference between RMC and AXB was less than 1%, whereas AAA exhibited minor degradation. In organ-at-risk dose evaluations, RMC delivered higher doses compared to AXB and AAA, with AAA doses exceeding those of AXB. These findings confirm the dose consistency of RayStation and Eclipse algorithms for use with the Halcyon accelerator. The RayStation Monte Carlo algorithm (RMC) is a viable alternative to AXB, especially in lung cancer cases with high tissue heterogeneity, as target coverage and conformity discrepancies remain within 0.5%. Additionally, recalculation of RMC-optimized plans in Eclipse using AXB resulted in lower organ-at-risk doses. Therefore, recalculations performed before treatment do not compromise the clinical adequacy of volumetric dose evaluations.
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.