A comparison of the 1% flat widths at of depth in water between the CyberKnife and an ordinary linac (Clinac 21EX, Varian ME). The SCD is for the CyberKnife and for the linac.
The error of dosimeter reading (%) as a function of cavity length of ionization chamber and field . The cavity radius is calculated in , and these values are for a SCD of at a depth of in water.
The variance between the simulated and measured PDD [60.3% of ] as function of the energy of incident electrons.
A comparison between the measured and calculated PDD in water for an SSD and relative deviations from a measured PDD as a function of depth in water for a field diameter of (a) 6.0 and (b) .
A comparison between the measured and the calculated OAR at depth of (a) 5 and (b) for a SSD of and a field of diameter.
A comparison of the photon energy spectrum between the CyberKnife and an ordinary linac at phantom surface. (Field is for CyberKnife and for the linac).
The beam quality correction factor in the CyberKnife beam as a function of (a) depth in water for a cone and (b) a field diameter at a depth of .
Reference conditions for determination of absorbed dose to water in CyberKnife beam.
Spencer–Attix stopping power ratios and the mean mass energy-absorption coefficient ratios as a function of for a field diameter of and at a depth of in water.
Beam quality correction factor as a function of the beam quality index and .
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...