ArticleJournal of medical physics
Stereotactic Cones in a 6MV Flattening Filter-free Beam: A Dosimetric Comparison of Varian Cones on TrueBeam versus CyberKnife Cones.
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: Dosimetric comparison of conical collimator (CC) supplied by Varian Medical System on a TrueBeam (TB) for 6MV-flattening filter-free (FFF) beams versus CC on CyberKnife-G4 (CK) by Accuray Inc. Methods: 5 cones with nominal diameters of 5 mm, 7.5 mm, 10 mm, 12.5 mm, and 15 mm were considered in our study. Percentage depth dose (PDD), off-axis ratio (OAR), tissue maximum ratio (TMR), and output factor (OF) were presented and compared. Results: PDD comparisons between TB and CK cones show good agreement across the range of cones; the mean difference of the % dose values, for all cones, was - 0.9% ±1.2% across the five considered depths along the curve. The agreement between CK and TB cones is poorer for TMR; the discrepancies between CK and TB values increase with depth and lightly decrease with increased cone size. OAR profiles are in agreement, although CK cones tend to overestimate the dose between 80% and 5% dose; consequently, the FHWM (full width at half maximum) for CK cones is slightly larger. Except for the 5-mm cone with a difference percentage of -3.7% between CK and Varian cones, CK cones show the largest output factors, with a maximum difference percentage was 1.9% for the 7.5-mm cone. Conclusion: CK and TB cones show similar dosimetric characteristics. The observed differences suggest that the 6MV-FFF beams from TB cones would be slightly "softer" than the 6MV-FFF beams from CK cones; Varian cones may potentially provide better sparing of organs at risk.
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.