ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Craniospinal Irradiation: A Dosimetric Comparison Between O-Ring Linac and Conventional C-arm Linac.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A meta-analysis of dose-volume parameters and treatment efficiency comparing O-ring and C-arm accelerator systems for craniospinal irradiations.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Craniospinal irradiation planning and delivery: a comparison between Halcyon Ring Gantry and TrueBeam C Arm LINAC delivery systems.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025Article
- Multimodal radiotherapy dose prediction using a multi-task deep learning model.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Article
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
Purpose: The aim of this study was to perform a dosimetric evaluation between craniospinal irradiation volumetric modulated arc therapy plans designed for an O-Ring and a conventional C-arm Linac. Methods and Materials: Two adult patients were selected for this study. Two plans were designed one for a TrueBeam Edge and one for Halcyon O-ring Linac for each patient. The evaluation of the plans was conducted in terms of dose volume histogram analysis of the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) along with total plan monitor units and beam-on time. Paired sample Results: All plans demonstrated dose distributions with sufficient planned target volume conformity and homogeneity. The Homogeneity Index and Conformity Index for all plans were found comparable. The paired sample Conclusions: Craniospinal irradiation plans generated for Halcyon and Edge are equivalent in terms of plan quality and dose sparing at OARs. The small variations may have originated from the differences in beam profile or mean energy, the degree of the modulation for each plan and characteristics of multi leaf collimators for each treatment unit. Halcyon is able to deliver a distinctly faster treatment, but Edge provides an automatic rotational correction for patient positioning.
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.