ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Multi-institutional evaluation of isocentricity on a ring-gantry linear accelerator platform with double-stacked MLCs.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: This study aimed to characterize the isocentricity of ring-gantry linacs and evaluate variability across institutions and software. Isocentricity is assessed using vendor-provided and user-defined Winston-Lutz (WL) tests. Materials and methods: WL was performed at two institutions on a ring-gantry linac using a custom phantom over 1.5 years. Distal and proximal MLCs were tested, with measurements obtained before and after applying 3D shifts. WL analysis was performed using in-house, commercial (C1-C3), and open-source software. Assessed parameters included the 2D ball bearing (BB)-radiation offset, the 3D offset minimizing 2D errors, and 3D isocenter size. 3D isocenter size was additionally computed using gantry-only fields to remove collimator walkout contributions. Results: Results across institutions showed sub-millimeter agreement among software except for C1 (max 0.99 mm difference). Machine-dependent variations were observed (p < 0.03). Proximal and distal banks demonstrated small but statistically significant differences (p < 0.03) in 2D/3D offsets and isocenter size, with greater walkout in the proximal bank and poorer axis alignment in the distal bank. Collimator-walkout-corrected 3D isocenter size was not statistically different between proximal and distal bank or between pre- and post-3D-offset shift. Conclusion: Isocentricity measurements depended on software, MLC bank, pre-/post-offset correction, and institution. For the tested machines, which showed a mean imaging-to-radiation isocenter coincidence of 0.8 mm and a radiation-isocenter size of 0.7 mm, a minimum targeting margin of 1.5 mm would be appropriate to account for geometric uncertainty. With the results from this study, clinicians can choose their own margins based on their machine characteristics.
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.