Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42467528›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026

Commissioning and performance evaluations of the electron Monte Carlo algorithm in a new commercial treatment planning system.

Feng Wang, Xuming Jiang, Zhi Shi, Yanfang Liu, Yibin Zhang, Jiayi Chen

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Feng WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3025-2359
Xuming JiangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Zhi ShiShanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co., Shanghai, China.
Yanfang LiuShanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co., Shanghai, China.
Yibin ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9862-8803
Jiayi ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82373514Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases-National Science and Technology Major Project 2023ZD0502200Shanghai Innovative Medical Device Application Demonstration Project 23SHS03400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the newly implemented electron Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in the commercial treatment planning system, uTPS. It investigates the performance of the algorithm by examining its dosimetric accuracy and calculation speed, which have not been previously reported in the literature.

methodsTo evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of the electron Monte Carlo algorithm in uTPS, the beam data from the electron energies of 6 MeV, 9 MeV, and 12 MeV in the newly developed dual-layer MLC CT-linac were modeled. Following AAPM MPPG 5.b, the calculated point/plane doses under normal and extended SSD, oblique incidence and cutouts, and heterogeneous phantoms with different energies were compared with the corresponding measurement data. The calculation time was evaluated by the comparisons between two different calculation workstations.

resultsThe beam data of 6 MeV, 9 MeV, and 12 MeV are well reproduced by the calculations. A dose grid resolution of 2 mm, 1% uncertainty, and dose to medium mode were used. Calculations successfully validated against the measured beam data, achieving mean dose differences of less than 2% in a water tank. The gamma passing rates were generally high and mostly exceeded 95% using 3 mm/3% criteria, although several larger-field, extended-SSD, and oblique/cutout cases showed lower passing rates, with minimum values remaining above 90%. The cutout tests, both special designed and patient specific, demonstrate that the algorithm can handle cases with cutouts effectively. In the heterogeneous phantom tests, the point dose differences for all SSDs are within 3.3%, indicating the accuracy of the uTPS Monte Carlo algorithm in handling heterogeneous media. The calculation times ranged from approximately 5 - 30 s for a statistical uncertainty of 1%, whereas achieving a tighter uncertainty of 0.5% increased the computation time to between 10 s and 2.5 min.

conclusionVerifications performed under these basic and complicated conditions indicate that the accuracy of electron Monte Carlo algorithm in uTPS meets the requirements of MPPG 5.b for electron beam dose verification. The electron Monte Carlo algorithm of uTPS demonstrates accuracy comparable to that of other commercial TPSs. The comprehensive evaluation confirms the algorithm's robust performance, as it achieves the necessary levels of dosimetric precision and calculation times to support diverse radiotherapy workflows.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronsMonte Carlo MethodNeoplasmsParticle AcceleratorsPhantoms, ImagingRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedHumansRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-Modulatedand uTPSdose calculation accuracydose calculation timeelectron monte carlo algorithm

Identifiers

PMID42467528
PMCPMC13378912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.