ArticleJournal of medical physics
Comparative Analysis of Commercial Independent Dose Calculation Systems for Gamma Knife Stereotactic Radiosurgery.
Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Independent dose calculation is recommended for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) quality assurance. This study evaluates the accuracy of three commercial secondary dose calculation software programs-MUCheck, RadCalc, and ClearCalc-against the Elekta Leksell Gamma Plan (LGP) treatment planning system (TPS) for Gamma Knife SRS. Materials and Methods: Dose calculations for 133 patients (239 intracranial targets) planned with the LGP TPS using the TMR10 algorithm were retrospectively analyzed with MUCheck, RadCalc, and ClearCalc. Point dose calculations were compared between each software and LGP. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired Results: Mean differences were 0.34% ± 1.10% (MUCheck), 0.53% ±0.53% (RadCalc), and 0.63% ± 0.16% (ClearCalc). All showed statistically significant differences from LGP but remained within clinical tolerance. Clinical tolerance analysis showed 97.9%, 100%, and 100% of calculations within ±3% for MUCheck, RadCalc, and ClearCalc, respectively. ANOVA revealed significant differences among platforms ( Conclusion: All three software platforms provide clinically acceptable independent dose verification for Gamma Knife SRS, with deviations well below AAPM TG-178 recommended tolerance levels. Selection of the appropriate secondary dose calculation platform should be based on institutional workflow integration and specific clinical requirements rather than statistical differences alone.
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.