ArticleReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
Comparison of three different phantoms used for Winston-Lutz test with Artiscan software.
Article in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical implementation of a multifaceted quality assurance phantom for high-precision radiation therapy: an institutional experience.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Five-year evaluation of linear accelerator-based SRS platform isocentricity.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
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
backgroundOne of the most important test in every quality assurances process of medical linear accelerators is the Winston-Lutz test, allowing an evaluation of the treatment isocentre in the light of uncertainty of the position of the collimator, the gantry and the couch.
aimThe purpose of this work was analysis of the results of the Winston-Lutz test performed with three different phantoms for two different accelerators. MATERIALS AND
methodsMeasurements were performed on two Varian machines: TrueBeam equipped with aS1200 EPID and TrueBeam equipped with aS1000 EPID. During the study three different phantoms dedicated for verification of the radiation isocentre were used: PTW Isoball, AQUILAB Isocentre Phantom and Varian Isocentre Cube. Analysis of the DICOM images was performed in Artiscan software.
resultsFor TrueBeam with as1200 EPID, gantry MV isocentre was about 0.18 mm larger for Varian Isocentre Cube than for two other phantoms used in this study. The largest variability of this parameter was observed for the couch. The results differed to 1.16 mm. For TrueBeam with as1000 EPID, results for collimator isocentre with PTW Isoball phantom were about 0.10 mm larger than for two other phantoms. For the gantry, results obtained with Varian Isocentre Cube were 0.21 mm larger.
conclusionThe obtained results for all three phantoms are within the accepted tolerance range. The largest differences were observed for treatment couch, which may be related to the phantom mobility during couch movement.
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.