ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Assessment of scintillation and Cherenkov imaging as beam shape verification method in CyberKnife® radiotherapy.
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 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.
- Assessment of scintillation and Cherenkov imaging as beam shape verification method in CyberKnife® radiotherapy.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goal of this study is to assess the utility of Cherenkov imaging (CI) and scintillation imaging (SI) as high-resolution techniques to measure CyberKnife® beam shape quantitatively at the irradiation surface in quality assurance (QA).
methodsThe EMCCD camera captured scintillation and Cherenkov photons arising from 6 MV x-ray dose deposition produced by the CyberKnife® VSI System. Two imaging methods were done at source to surface distance of 800 cm with the same field size, ranging from 10 to 60 mm using fixed cones and iris collimators. The output sensitivity and constancy were measured using the SI and CI, and benchmarked against an ionization chamber. Line profiles of each beam measured by optical imaging were compared with film measurement. Position shifts were introduced to test the sensitivity of SI and CI to small beam position deviations. To assess reproducibility, the beam measurements were tested three times on 5 consecutive days.
resultsBoth systems exhibited comparable sensitivity to the ionization chamber in response to fluctuations in CyberKnife® output. The beam profiles in SI matched well with the measured film image, with accuracy in the range of ± 0.20 and ± 0.26 mm standard deviation for the circle and iris field, respectively. The corresponding accuracy measured by CI is in the range of ± 0.25 and ± 0.33 mm, respectively. These are all within the tolerance recommended by the guidelines of CyberKnife® QA. The accuracy measured by SI and CI for 1 mm beam position shift within 0.21 and 0.45 mm tolerance, respectively. Repeatability measurements of the beam have shown a standard deviation within 0.94 mm.
conclusionsSI and CI techniques are tested to provide a valid way to measure CyberKnife® beam shape in this study. Meanwhile, the systematic comparison of SI and CI also provides evidence for the measurement methods selection appropriately.
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.