ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Evaluation of dynamic accuracy and latency of a surface-guided radiotherapy system.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. 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.
- Commissioning of LUNA three-dimensional surface-guided radiotherapy in full rotating gantry proton therapy system.International journal of particle therapy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Setup Accuracy of a Skin-markerless Positioning Using Surface-guided Radiotherapy in Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the dynamic accuracy and latency of the surface-guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system using TrueBeam and AlignRT in compliance with SGRT guidelines. Beam characteristics-flatness, symmetry, beam quality, and output-were compared between gated and nongated beams using a two-dimensional ionization chamber array and a Farmer-type chamber. Dynamic accuracy was assessed using a moving platform and breast phantom, with measurements taken for various shift values (5, 10, 30 mm), region-of-interest (ROI) shapes, reference-surface image types (DICOM and capture), surface resolutions, and room illuminations. Latency due to differences in frame rates was evaluated using radiochromic film, calculated from position displacements of profiles at two speeds. Differences in beam characteristics between gated and nongated beams were within 0.1%. Dynamic accuracy showed minimal dependence on settings, with deviations of < 1 mm for a 10-mm shift. A maximum displacement of 1.9 mm was observed with a 30-mm shift at the body ROI. Beam-on latency at 12, 16, 25, and 35 frames per second was 253.2 ± 21.9, 225.7 ± 33.7, 177.1 ± 43.0, and 112.4 ± 29.2 ms, respectively, with similar trends for beam-off latency. This study is the first to evaluate the dynamic accuracy of the TrueBeam and AlignRT system under SGRT-specific settings. While accuracy was generally maintained (< 1 mm), ROI shape significantly impacted results. Latency results indicate that certain frame rates may not meet guideline limits, underscoring the need for careful SGRT system use in clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39609349What 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.