ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Evaluation of a high resolution diode array for CyberKnife quality assurance.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a high resolution diode array for CyberKnife quality assurance.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe CyberKnife quality assurance (QA) program relies mainly on the use of radiochromic film (RCF). We aimed at evaluating high-resolution arrays of detectors as an alternative to films for CyberKnife machine QA.
methodsThis study will test the SRS Mapcheck (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, Florida, USA) diode array and its own software, which allows three tests of the CyberKnife QA program to be performed. The first one is a geometrical accuracy test based on the delivery of two orthogonal beams (Automated Quality Assurance, AQA). Besides comparing the constancy and repeatability of both methods, known errors will be introduced to check their sensitivity. The second checks the constancy of the iris collimator field sizes (Iris QA). Changes in the field sizes will be introduced to study the array sensitivity. The last test checks the correct positioning of the multileaf collimator (MLC). It will be tested introducing known systematic displacements to whole banks and to single leaves.
resultsThe results of the RCF and diode array were equivalent (maximum differences of 0.18 ± 0.14 mm) for the AQA test, showing the array a higher reproducibility. When known errors were introduced, both methods behaved linearly with similar slopes. Regarding Iris QA, the array measurements are highly linear when changes in the field sizes are introduced. Linear regressions show slopes of 0.96-1.17 with r
conclusionsThe diode array is sensitive and accurate in the AQA and Iris QA tests, which give us the possibility of substituting RCF with a diode array. QA would be performed faster than using the film procedure, obtaining reliable results. Regarding the MLC QA, the inability to detect systematic displacements make it difficult to confidently use the detector.
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.