ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comprehensive dosimetric comparison of halcyon 3.0 versus truebeam for breast cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Log file-based treatment efficiency analysis of TrueBeam and Halcyon delivery systems.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is the foremost malignancy threatening female health. This study aimed to compare the dosimetric performance of Halcyon 3.0 and TrueBeam in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) planning for breast cancer. Methods: Thirty post-operative breast cancer patients were included. VMAT plans for Halcyon 3.0 and TrueBeam were generated using 6MV FFF beams in Eclipse 16.1 with identical optimizing objectives. Organs At Risk (OARs) and target metrics were evaluated. Statistical analysis employed paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (α=0.05). Results: Halcyon significantly reduced the mean dose of heart (Δ = -112.5 cGy, P< 0.001), left anterior descending artery mean dose (Δ = -151.3 cGy, P< 0.001), and spinal cord maximum dose (Δ = -88.2 cGy, P = 0.011). Low-dose exposure improved, with heart V5 (volume receiving ≥500 cGy) reduced from 22.0% to 12.6% (P< 0.001) and ipsilateral lung V5 reduced from 59.4% to 45.8% (P< 0.001) between Halcyon and TrueBeam. Halcyon lowered the absolute volume received 500 cGy by 487 cm³ (P< 0.001). Halcyon had the better target homogeneity (homogeneity index: Δ = -0.01, P< 0.001), while conformity remained comparable (P > 0.05). Despite having higher monitor units (Δ = 87.5, P< 0.001), Halcyon maintained delivery efficiency through faster leaf motion speed and gantry rotation velocity. Conclusions: Compared with TrueBeam, Halcyon achieved reduction in low-dose exposure while maintaining target coverage in breast cancer VMAT planning, thereby lowering radiation doses to OARs (e.g., heart and lung V5). This benefit is likely attributed to Halcyon's unique staggered dual-layer MLC design.
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.