ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
High-precision localization of radiation isocenter using Winston-Lutz test: Impact of collimator angle, phantom position, and field size.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. 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.
- High-precision localization of radiation isocenter using Winston-Lutz test: Impact of collimator angle, phantom position, and field size.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of collimator angle, ball bearing (BB) phantom position, and field size on the accuracy of Winston-Lutz (WL) test-derived radiation isocenters.
methodsWL tests were performed on four TrueBeam linear accelerators. Fifty-six images (eight gantry angles multiplied by seven collimator angles) were acquired for each WL test. Images with different sets of collimator angles were used to compute the radiation isocenters. The resulting radiation isocenters were correlated with the collimator angles. Then, the BB position and radiation field size were varied for the subsequent WL tests. The calculated BB shifts were compared with the known shifts, and the radiation isocenters were compared between different field sizes.
resultsThe use of a single collimator angle led to errors of as much as 0.4 mm in the calculated radiation isocenters. Systematic differences were observed between the radiation isocenters derived with collimator angle 0° and those derived with 90° and/or 270°. A commonly used opposing collimator angle pair, 90° and 270°, resulted in a vertical 0.1 mm offset of the radiation isocenters toward the ceiling. Oblique opposite or mixed collimator angles yielded radiation isocenter errors less than 0.1 mm. The BB shifts derived from WL tests were less than 0.1 mm from the known shifts. The radiation isocenters varied by less than 0.1 mm between field sizes ranging from 2 × 2 cm
conclusionsOblique opposing collimator angle pairs should be considered to minimize errors in localizing radiation isocenters. Uncertainty in BB positioning could be eliminated if the BB is used as a static reference point in space. The field size had no significant effect on the radiation isocenters. With careful design of WL test parameters and image processing, it is possible to achieve a precision of 0.1 mm in localizing radiation isocenters using WL tests.
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.