ArticleJournal of medical physics
Point Dosimetry in Patient-specific Quality Assurance of a Robotic Radiosurgery System Using a Scintillation Detector.
Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for CyberKnife is typically performed using micro ionization chambers and film dosimetry. However, micro ionization chambers tend to underestimate dose measurements in small radiation fields. Therefore, scintillation detectors, with their small detector size, may be more suitable for point dosimetry in CyberKnife QA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of a scintillation detector (Exradin W2 [W2]) for point dose measurements in CyberKnife patient-specific QA. Methods: Dosimetric measurements for 50 treatment plans involving intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy were performed using both the W2 and a micro ionization chamber (Exradin A16 [A16]). Results: The mean point dose differences in patient-specific QA were 0.5% for W2 and -6.6% for A16; dose differences with W2 were generally within ±3%. Factors contributing to measurement robustness included the optical fiber dose for W2, and the static cable dose and collimator size for A16.
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.