ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Commissioning and validation of RayStation treatment planning system for CyberKnife M6.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- SRS/SBRT commissioning process with a hybrid beam data model in new preconfigured CyberKnife system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Dosimetric comparison of M6 CyberKnife plans optimized with Precision and RayStation 12A treatment planning systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric comparison of multiple SBRT delivery platforms for pancreatic cancer.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Clinical application of a GPU-accelerated monte carlo dose verification for cyberknife M6 with Iris collimator.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Commissioning and validation of RayStation treatment planning system for CyberKnife M6.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRaySearch (AB, Stockholm) has released a module for CyberKnife (CK) planning within its RayStation (RS) treatment planning system (TPS). PURPOSE: To create and validate beam models of fixed, Iris, and multileaf collimators (MLC) of the CK M6 for Monte Carlo (MC) and collapsed cone (CC) algorithms in the RS TPS.
methodsMeasurements needed for the creation of the beam models were performed in a water tank with a stereotactic PTW 60018 diode. Both CC and MC models were optimized in RS by minimizing the differences between the measured and computed profiles and percentage depth doses. The models were then validated by comparing dose from the plans created in RS with both single and multiple beams in different phantom conditions with the corresponding measured dose. Irregular field shapes and off-axis beams were also tested for the MLC. Validation measurements were performed using an A1SL ionization chamber, EBT3 Gafchromic films, and a PTW 1000 SRS detector. Finally, patient-specific QAs with gamma criteria of 3%/1 mm were performed for each model.
resultsThe models were created in a straightforward manner with efficient tools available in RS. The differences between computed and measured doses were within ±1% for most of the configurations tested and reached a maximum of 3.2% for measurements at a depth of 19.5-cm. With respect to all collimators and algorithms, the maximum averaged dose difference was 0.8% when considering absolute dose measurements on the central axis. The patient-specific QAs led to a mean result of 98% of points fulfilling gamma criteria.
conclusionsWe created both CC and MC models for fixed, Iris, and MLC collimators in RS. The dose differences for all collimators and algorithms were within ±1%, except for depths larger than 9 cm. This allowed us to validate both models for clinical use.
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.