ArticleJournal of medical physics
Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Catalyst
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this study, we describe and critically review our experience in the commissioning of the surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) system from C-RAD (Uppsala, Sweden), integrated with a Varian TrueBeam HyperArc linear accelerator (LINAC). Materials and Methods: The C-RAD SGRT system was commissioned according to the guidelines of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 147 and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-Advisory Committee for Radiation Oncology Practice report. The commissioning tests included the isocenter, camera thermal drift, reproducibility, static localization accuracy with a 6-degree-of-freedom (DOF) couch, dynamic gating delivery, and an end-to-end test. The tools and phantoms employed for this verification included: (a) Sentinel 4DCT daily check device, (b) Catalyst⁺ HD daily check device, (c) Penta-guide, (d) gating phantom, (e) calibration board, (f) Winston-Lutz phantom, and (g) the Little John anthropomorphic phantom. Results/Discussion: The reproducibility of both the Sentinel 4DCT and Catalyst⁺ HD cameras demonstrated accuracy within ± 1 mm. The radiation isocenter measurements for both the Sentinel 4DCT and Catalyst⁺ HD cameras were found to be <1 mm, well within the recommended reports of the relevant international guidelines. The static localization accuracy of the Catalyst⁺ HD camera with a 6DOF couch was determined to be 0.15 ± 0.13 mm, 0.42 ± 0.23 mm, and 0.20 ± 0.15 mm for the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The rotational accuracy for roll, pitch, and yaw was found to be 0.05°±0.05°, 0.12°±0.18°, and 0.13°±0.10°, respectively. All results were within the tolerances recommended by the international recommendations and highlight the accuracy and precision of the C-RAD SGRT system in conjunction with the TrueBeam HyperArc LINAC. Conclusion: The newly installed advanced C-RAD SGRT systems have been successfully integrated with the Varian TrueBeam LINAC for clinical use, marking a significant milestone as the first deployment of SGRT technology of its kind in India.
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.