ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Commissioning and verification of a 3D Monte Carlo independent calculation software for O-ring linac systems.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. 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.
- Commissioning and verification of a 3D Monte Carlo independent calculation software for O-ring linac systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundO-ring linac systems improve radiotherapy efficiency but require rigorous pretreatment verification due to increased delivery uncertainty in IMRT/VMAT. Existing methods face limitations: measurement-based approaches incur setup errors, while calculation-based methods (e.g., Monte Carlo) need machine-specific validation per AAPM TG-219. PURPOSE: To commission the O-ring linac model in RadCalc Monte Carlo software and establish its clinical dosimetric accuracy.
methodsThe additional radiation to light field offset (ARLFO) parameter in RadCalc was adjusted from -0.08 cm (-0.8 mm) to +0.08 cm (+0.8 mm) (nine sets). TG-119 and clinical benchmark cases were used to design IMRT/VMAT plans. Verification plans were measured experimentally, and all plans were imported into RadCalc for secondary dose calculation. Triangular gamma analysis (3%/2 mm) compared Monte Carlo-simulated, measured, and TPS-calculated doses. The optimal ARLFO was determined by weighted averaging of gamma pass rates. The model was validated on 10 clinical cases per site (head, thorax, abdomen, pelvis).
resultsCommissioning identified the optimal ARLFO parameter as -0.02 cm (-0.02 mm). Under the gamma analysis criterion of 3%/2 mm, the comparison between TPS-calculated doses and Monte Carlo-calculated doses for 10 clinical plans across four anatomical sites yielded: 98.9% ± 0.8% (head and neck), 98.5% ± 0.8% (thorax), 99.6% ± 0.3% (abdomen), and 99.1% ± 0.5% (pelvis). For verification plans, the gamma pass rates between Monte Carlo-calculated doses and measured doses were 97.5% ± 2.8% (head and neck), 95.6% ± 2.8% (thorax), 96.3% ± 2.9% (abdomen), and 99.4% ± 0.5% (pelvis), while comparisons of Monte Carlo-calculated doses versus TPS-calculated doses reached 99.5% ± 0.8% (head and neck), 99.2% ± 1.0% (thorax), 99.5% ± 0.9% (abdomen), and 99.9% ± 0.2% (pelvis), demonstrating consistent dosimetric accuracy of the optimized model across all clinical sites.
conclusionThis study establishes a commissioning methodology to determine the optimal ARLFO value for RadCalc, enabling clinics to achieve reliable independent plan verification for O-ring linac.
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.