Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38954381›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024

Assessing focal spot alignment in clinical linear accelerators: a comprehensive evaluation with triplet phantoms.

Hans L Riis, Kenni H Engstrøm, Luke Slama, Joshua Dass, Martin A Ebert, Pejman Rowshanfarzad

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hans L RiisDepartment of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. hans.lynggaard.riis@rsyd.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7311-3717
Kenni H EngstrømDepartment of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6967-6998
Luke SlamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5966-7200
Joshua DassDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4726-9192
Martin A EbertDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6875-0719
Pejman RowshanfarzadCentre for Advanced Technologies in Cancer Research (CATCR), Perth, WA, 6000, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8306-7742

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fundamental parameter to evaluate the beam delivery precision and stability on a clinical linear accelerator (linac) is the focal spot position (FSP) measured relative to the collimator axis of the radiation head. The aims of this work were to evaluate comprehensive data on FSP acquired on linacs in clinical use and to establish the ability of alternative phantoms to detect effects on patient plan delivery related to FSP. FSP measurements were conducted using a rigid phantom holding two ball-bearings at two different distances from the radiation source. Images of these ball-bearings were acquired using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) integrated with each linac. Machine QA was assessed using a radiation head-mounted PTW STARCHECK phantom. Patient plan QA was investigated using the SNC ArcCHECK phantom positioned on the treatment couch, irradiated with VMAT plans across a complete 360° gantry rotation and three X-ray energies. This study covered eight Elekta linacs, including those with 6 MV, 18 MV, and 6 MV flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams. The largest range in the FSP was found for 6 MV FFF. The FSP of one linac, retrofitted with 6 MV FFF, displayed substantial differences in FSP compared to 6 MV FFF beams on other linacs, which all had FSP ranges less than 0.50 mm and 0.25 mm in the lateral and longitudinal directions, respectively. The PTW STARCHECK phantom proved effective in characterising the FSP, while the SNC ArcCHECK measurements could not discern FSP-related features. Minor variations in FSP may be attributed to adjustments in linac parameters, component replacements necessary for beam delivery, and the wear and tear of various linac components, including the magnetron and gun filament. Consideration should be given to the ability of any particular phantom to detect a subsequent impact on the accuracy of patient plan delivery.

Indexed as

Particle AcceleratorsPhantoms, ImagingHumansRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedarcCHECKEPIDFocal spotGantry rotationLinear acceleratorLong-term stabilityMV radiationSTARCHECK

Identifiers

PMID38954381
PMCPMC11666691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.