ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Development of a digital star-shot analysis system for comparing radiation and imaging isocenters of proton treatment machine.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. 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.
- Development of a three-dimensional scintillation detector for pencil beam verification in proton therapy patient-specific quality assurance.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Development of a digital star-shot analysis system for comparing radiation and imaging isocenters of proton treatment machine.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo directly compare the radiation and imaging isocenters of a proton treatment machine, we developed and evaluated a real-time radiation isocenter verification system.
methodsThe system consists of a plastic scintillator (PI-200, Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), an acrylic phantom, a steel ball on the detachable plate, Raspberry Pi 4 (Raspberry Pi Foundation, London, UK) with camera module, and analysis software implemented through a Python-based graphical user interface (GUI). After kV imaging alignment of the steel ball, the imaging isocenter defined as the position of the steel ball was extracted from the optical image. The proton star-shot was obtained by optical camera because the scintillator converted proton beam into visible light. Then the software computed both the minimum circle radius and the radiation isocenter position from the star-shot. And the deviation between the imaging isocenter and radiation isocenter was calculated. We compared our results with measurements obtained by Gafchromic EBT3 film (Ashland, NJ, USA).
resultsThe minimum circle radii were averaged 0.29 and 0.41 mm while the position deviations from the radiation isocenter to the laser marker were averaged 0.99 and 1.07 mm, for our system and EBT3 film, respectively. Furthermore, the average position difference between the radiation isocenter and imaging isocenter was 0.27 mm for our system. Our system reduced analysis time by 10 min.
conclusionsOur system provided automated star-shot analysis with sufficient accuracy, and it is cost-effective alternative to conventional film-based method for radiation isocenter verification.
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.