ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2017
Does gated beam delivery impact delivery accuracy on an Elekta linac?
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing and validating a bi-polar gated respiratory motion management strategy for improved lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment.Cancer pathogenesis and therapy · 2025Article
- Measurement of the temporal latency of a respiratory gating system using two distinct approaches.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Implementation of respiratory-gated VMAT on a Versa HD linear accelerator.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2017Article
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
In this study, we evaluated the performance of an Elekta linac in the delivery of gated radiotherapy. Delivery accuracy was examined with an emphasis on the impact of using short gating windows (low monitor unit beam-on segments) or long beam hold times. The performance was assessed using a 20cm by 20cm open field with the radiation delivered using a range of beam-on and beam-off time periods. Gated delivery measurements were also performed for two SBRT plans delivered using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Tests included both free-breathing based gating (covering a variety of gating windows) and simulated breath-hold based gating. An IBA MatriXX 2D ion chamber array was used for data collection, and the gating accuracy at low MU was evaluated using gamma passing rates. For the 20 cm by 20 cm open field, the measurements generally showed close agreement between the gated and non-gated beam deliveries. Discrepancies, however, began to appear with a 5-to-1 ratio of the beam-off to beam-on times. The discrepancies observed for these tight gating windows can be attributed to the small number of monitor units delivered during each beam-on segment. Dose distribution analysis from the delivery of the two SBRT plans showed gamma passing rates (± 1%, 2%/1 mm) in the range of 95% to 100% for gating windows of 25%, 38%, 50%, 63%, 75%, and 83%. Using a simulated sinusoidal breathing signal with a 4 second period, the gamma passing rate of free-breathing gating and breath-hold gating deliveries were measured in the range of 95.7% to 100%. In conclusion, the results demonstrate that Elekta linacs can accurately deliver respiratory gated treatments for both free-breathing and breath-hold patients. Some caution should be exercised with the use of very tight gating windows.
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.