ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024
Comparison of skin dose in IMRT and VMAT with TrueBeam and Halcyon linear accelerator for whole breast irradiation.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative evaluation of surface dose values: radiochromic film measurements versus computational predictions from different radiotherapy planning algorithms.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of the backscattered skin dose from the beam stopper on Halcyon and Ethos radiotherapy systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Dosimetric Quality and Treatment Efficiency for Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy in Cervical-Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
With the increasing use of flattening filter free (FFF) beams, it is important to evaluate the impact on the skin dose and target coverage of breast cancer treatments. This study aimed to compare skin doses of treatments using FFF and flattening filter (FF) beams for breast cancer. The study established treatment plans for left breast of an anthropomorphic phantom using Halcyon's 6-MV FFF beam and TrueBeam's 6-MV FF beam. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with varying numbers of arcs and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were employed, and skin doses were measured at five points using Gafchromic EBT3 film. Each measurement was repeated three times, and averaged to reduce uncertainty. All plans were compared in terms of plan quality to ensure homogeneous target coverage. The study found that when using VMAT with two, four, and six arcs, in-field doses were 19%, 15%, and 6% higher, respectively, when using Halcyon compared to TrueBeam. Additionally, when using two arcs for VMAT, in-field doses were 10% and 15% higher compared to four and six arcs when using Halcyon. Finally, in-field dose from Halcyon using IMRT was about 1% higher than when using TrueBeam. Our research confirmed that when treating breast cancer with FFF beams, skin dose is higher than with traditional FF beams. Moreover, number of arcs used in VMAT treatment with FFF beams affects skin dose to the patient. To maintain a skin dose similar to that of FF beams when using Halcyon, it may be worth considering increasing the number of arcs.
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.