ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Surface dose analysis and dosimetric comparison of Halcyon versus Truebeam in breast cancer radiotherapy: An OSL dosimetry study.
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.
- Surface dose analysis and dosimetric comparison of Halcyon versus Truebeam in breast cancer radiotherapy: An OSL dosimetry study.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBreast cancer is a neoplastic disease with high prevalence among women. Radiotherapy is one of the principal treatment modalities for this disease, but it poses significant challenges. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the technical and dosimetric performance of conventional C-arm linac systems and a new design, Halcyon, in the context of breast radiotherapy.
methodsThe study included ten patients who had undergone left breast radiotherapy. Additionally, breast radiotherapy was simulated with an anthropomorphic phantom, and similar planning studies were performed. A total of 40 treatment plans were prepared for ten patients using the field-in-field (FinF) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques on both TrueBeam and Halcyon systems. Subsequently, treatment plans were created for anthropomorphic phantoms using both techniques on both devices. The dosimetric comparisons were conducted on treatment plans with different treatment techniques on both devices. An anthropomorphic phantom was employed to ascertain the surface dose during treatment, with irradiation conducted in the following with the OSL dosimetry method.
resultsPatient plan comparisons showed no statistically significant differences in planning target volume (PTV) outcomes between techniques and devices. Upon analysis of the organ at risk (OAR), statistically significant differences were identified for FinF in both devices for low-dose regions. Analysis of the OSL results obtained from phantom irradiations revealed that the Halcyon results were higher than those obtained with the TrueBeam for both techniques. Additionally, a comparison of OSL results with the TPS data revealed discrepancies of up to 18% within the field and up to 22% outside the field. Furthermore, Halcyon demonstrated higher Monitor Unit (MU) values for both techniques, while still maintaining shorter treatment times.
conclusionThe Halcyon demonstrated comparable technical and dosimetric outcomes to conventional C-arm linac in breast radiotherapy. Its distinctive design features contribute to the implementation of efficient and secure treatment modalities.
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.