Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39811394›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2025

Proton and Carbon Ion Beam Spot Size Measurement Using 5 Different Detector Types.

Matthias Witt, Uli Weber, Sebastian Adeberg, Kilian-Simon Baumann, Klemens Zink

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of particle therapy, 2025. 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthias WittInstitute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, University of Applied Sciences, Giessen, Germany.
Uli WeberInstitute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, University of Applied Sciences, Giessen, Germany.
Sebastian AdebergDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Marburg University Hospital, Marburg, Germany.
Kilian-Simon BaumannInstitute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, University of Applied Sciences, Giessen, Germany.
Klemens ZinkInstitute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, University of Applied Sciences, Giessen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The spot size of scanned particle beams is of crucial importance for the correct dose delivery and, therefore, plays a significant role in the quality assurance (QA) of pencil beam scanning ion beam therapy. Materials and Methods: This study compares 5 detector types-radiochromic film, ionization chamber (IC) array, flat panel detector, multiwire chamber, and IC-for measuring the spot size of proton and carbon ion beams. Results: Variations of up to 30% were found between detectors, underscoring the impact of detector choice on QA outcomes. The multiwire chamber consistently measured the smallest spot sizes, attributed to its intrinsic calculation model, while the IC array yielded larger spot sizes due to volume-averaging effects. These discrepancies highlight the necessity of selecting detectors based on QA needs, such as measurement speed, spatial resolution, and data acquisition methods. Digital detectors offer advantages over film-based ones by automating data processing, reducing manual errors, and providing immediate results. Conclusion: The study concludes that, although a single Gaussian fit is generally sufficient for QA, more sophisticated models might be beneficial for special applications. These findings aim to guide detector selection for ion beam facilities, enhancing QA procedures.

Indexed as

Detector comparisonPencil beam scanningQuality assuranceSpot size

Identifiers

PMID39811394
PMCPMC11732072

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.