|WikiProject Robotics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Made a few change in the opening paragraph. "Precisely controlled" is ill-defined, especially when no comparison to gantry-based systems' precision is given. Clarified that the IRIS gives a variable aperture, supplanting the need for the separate cones. There is not "complete" freedom to position the source (it can't get under the patient, for example). Gantry systems give a similar freedom, but require moving both the patient and the source to do so. "Feasibly short treatment time" is entirely subjective, but much of the sentence was valuable as a lead-in to the source location topic. It does seem that the source details (dose rate, collimation features, etc.) should be moved out of the "robotic mounting" paragraph as they're not related to how it's mounted, but I didn't see a good place for that content and wasn't ready to start a new section.Mweir2 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Added a few sentences to this article as I do not think it accurately reflected the cyberknife's level of availability. Also to clarify that the clinical evidence cited are early studies which do not yet show any survival benefits over conventional treatment. Due to recent stories in the press I have been coming across many badly informed patients and I don't think this article is very helpful from a patient's perspective. --Epid (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is heavily biased, and appears to be written by someone Accuray hired to advertise their machine. The page fails to mention two of the major competitor machines (Varian's Trilogy and Elekta's Synergy). The Linac based radiosurgery machines can not only deliver a comparable treatment, but likely would do so in significantly less time. Also, the Trilogy or Synergy can also be used as conventional linear accelerators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
I believe this exact same article was deleted a month or two ago; now it is back, and I don't notice any substantial edits. The Cyberknife is a radiosurgical device, much like Kleenex is a tissue. There should be no articles solely about Kleenex or Cyberknife on Wikipedia IMHO. Scarbrtj 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there seems to be some discussion of equipment offered by major competitors (such as the GammaKnife). However, the pages of competitors don't seem to discuss the CyberKnife. Strange. ccchhhrrriiisss 11:30, 16 December 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
Fair use rationale for Image:WikipediaAccuray final L-2-hero-jpg.jpg
Image:WikipediaAccuray final L-2-hero-jpg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
what comes out of the Cyberknife
What type of radiation?
If you read the article you would find this information:
Mounted on the Robot is a compact X-band linac that produces 6MV X-ray radiation.
188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I had trouble with this "fact" as well -- megavolts (MV) really aren't a unit relevant to the production of radiation. Does the Cyberknife system produce EM radiation with photon energy of 6 mega-electron-volts (MeV), which would be the relevant and useful information? This is in units of energy rather than potential, and so is more useful in terms of converting among the various properties relevant to radiation therapy (wavelength, beam absorption per tissue depth, etc.). If the reference is to a 6 MeV photon energy, though, this still doesn't express the total beam energy available (which would be the information from which one would like to calculate the available dose per second at various depths, etc.). A measure in megavolts doesn't provide either of these bits of information (and doesn't seem to make sense in this context), but information on photon energy (in MeV) and available beam intensity (in Gy/s) would be more suitable to a Wikipedia article. (The article as it stands refers to 600 or 800 cGy/min, or 10 to 13.3 cGy/s, which is appropriate; a number with the appropriate units for photon energy would be useful for those of us who aren't familiar with the system to understand what it does and give a sense of the tissue penetration depth available.)
M Groesbeck (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I would find inclusion of this article too broad, too distracting and too lengthy for readers in a hurry. Just yesterday I was discussing robots for laproscopy with a surgeon. Quite different subjects, where specialized information needs to be in reasonable sized articles.--Stageivsupporter (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Because of particular proprietary technology features are discussed, I think a separate article may create less confusion about which features are on which kind of related, but different, medical devices. Just like there is an article on Operating systems, there are articles on Microsoft and Windows.
Significant Problems with this article
There are (IMHO) significant problems with this article. I second the comment about references.
In particular, the section under the heading "Frameless" suggests that there is improved workflow with CyberKnife vs. other systems. This does not seem to be the case.
"Unlike whole brain radiotherapy, which must be administered daily over several weeks" is incorrect.
"The delivery of a radiation treatment over several days or even weeks (referred to as fractionation) can also be beneficial from a therapeutic point of view." is correct.However, the CyberKnife is HYPO-fractionated (i.e. less fractions than usual), and therefore the (possible) benefit of fractionation would weigh against Cyberknife compared to conventional RT.
"Overlook Hospital in Summit, New Jersey was the first hospital in the New York metro area to offer the CyberKnife Stereotactic Radiosurgery System. Today, Overlook has performed the second most treatments of prostate cancer with the cyberknife in the world." Should this be included at all? Is this not just PR?
What a useless sentence to include in the article this is: "In 2008 actor Patrick Swayze was among the people to be treated with Cyberknife radiosurgery.[37". Has Britney Spears been treated on a CyberKnife yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)