ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016
Dosimetric comparison between cone/Iris-based and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans for single and multiple brain metastases.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- A beam model and Boltzmann solver for radiotherapy treatment planning of superficial brain metastases using a scanned electron beam at ultra-high (FLASH) dose rate.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of plan quality between two SRS systems for stereotactic irradiation in treating Vestibular Schwannoma.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- AAPM task group report 135.B: Quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric comparison of HyperArc and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans in treating single and multiple brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- A mini review of plan quality and secondary cancer risk in CyberKnife M6 radiosurgery for benign intracranial tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Noninvasive cardiac radioablation for ventricular tachycardia: dosimetric comparison between linear accelerator- and robotic CyberKnife-based radiosurgery systems.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2023Article
- Current status of intra-cranial stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery in Australia and New Zealand: key considerations from a workshop and surveys.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of Two Cyberknife Planning Approaches for Multiple Brain Metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Tumor-dose-rate variations during robotic radiosurgery of oligo and multiple brain metastases.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Article
- Development of raster scanning IMRT using a robotic radiosurgery system.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Conventionally fractionated large volume head and neck re-irradiation using multileaf collimator-based robotic technique: A feasibility study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2020Article
- Prediction of conical collimator collision for stereotactic radiosurgery.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Radiation-Induced Secondary Cancer Risk Assessment in Patients With Lung Cancer After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Using the CyberKnife M6 System With Lung-Optimized Treatment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- Benchmarking techniques for stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage glottic laryngeal cancer: LINAC-based non-coplanar VMAT vs. Cyberknife planning.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Plan Quality and Secondary Cancer Risk Assessment in Patients with Benign Intracranial Lesions after Radiosurgery using the CyberKnife M6 Robotic Radiosurgery System.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Treatment planning for spinal radiosurgery : A competitive multiplatform benchmark challenge.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018Article
- HyperArc VMAT planning for single and multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery: a new treatment planning approach.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2018Article
- Clinical outcomes of multileaf collimator-based CyberKnife for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Treatment Planning for Self-Shielded Radiosurgery.Cureus · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed an evaluation of the CyberKnife InCise MLC by comparing plan qualities for single and multiple brain lesions generated using the first version of InCise MLC, fixed cone, and Iris collimators. We also investigated differences in delivery efficiency among the three collimators. Twenty-four patients with single or multiple brain mets treated previously in our clinic on a CyberKnife M6 using cone/Iris collimators were selected for this study. Treatment plans were generated for all lesions using the InCise MLC. Number of monitor units, delivery time, target coverage, conformity index, and dose falloff were compared between MLC- and clinical cone/Iris-based plans. Statistical analysis was performed using the non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney signed-rank test. The planning accuracy of the MLC-based plans was validated using chamber and film measurements. The InCise MLC-based plans achieved mean dose and target coverage comparable to the cone/Iris-based plans. Although the conformity indices of the MLC-based plans were slightly higher than those of the cone/Iris-based plans, beam delivery time for the MLC-based plans was shorter by 30% ~ 40%. For smaller targets or cases with OARs located close to or abutting target volumes, MLC-based plans provided inferior dose conformity compared to cone/Iris-based plans. The QA results of MLC-based plans were within 5% absolute dose difference with over 90% gamma passing rate using 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. The first version of InCise MLC could be a useful delivery modality, especially for clinical situations for which delivery time is a limiting factor or for multitarget cases.
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.