Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27811201›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2017

A robust measurement point for dose verification in delivery quality assurance for a robotic radiosurgery system.

Keita Kurosu, Iori Sumida, Hiroya Shiomi, Hirokazu Mizuno, Hiroko Yamaguchi, Hirofumi Okubo, Keisuke Tamari, Yuji Seo, Osamu Suzuki, Seiichi Ota and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Validation of the liver mean dose in terms of the biological effective dose for the prevention of radiation-induced liver damage.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Keita KurosuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Iori SumidaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Hiroya ShiomiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Hirokazu MizunoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Hiroko YamaguchiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Hirofumi OkuboDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Keisuke TamariDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Yuji SeoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Osamu SuzukiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Seiichi OtaDepartment of Radiology, Osaka University Hospital, 2-15 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Shinichi InoueDepartment of Radiology, Osaka University Hospital, 2-15 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Kazuhiko OgawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this CyberKnife® dose verification study, we investigated the effectiveness of the novel potential error (PE) concept when applied to the determination of a robust measurement point for targeting errors. PE was calculated by dividing the differences between the maximum increases and decreases in dose distributions by the original distribution after obtaining the former by shifting the source-to-axis and off-axis distances of each beam by ±1.0 mm. Thus, PE values and measurement point dose heterogeneity were analyzed in 48 patients who underwent CyberKnife radiotherapy. Sixteen patients who received isocentric dose delivery were set as the control group, whereas 32 who received non-isocentric dose delivery were divided into two groups of smaller PE (SPE) and larger PE (LPE) by using their median PE value. The mean dose differences (± standard deviations) were 1.0 ± 0.9%, 0.5 ± 1.4% and 4.1 ± 2.8% in the control, SPE and LPE groups, respectively. We observed significant correlations of the dose difference with the PE value (r = 0.582, P < 0.001) and dose heterogeneity (r = 0.471, P < 0.001). We concluded that when determining a robust measurement point for CyberKnife point dose verification, PE evaluation was more effective than the conventional dose heterogeneity-based method that introduced optimal measurement point dose heterogeneity of <10% across the detector.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, RadiationQuality Assurance, Health CareHumansRadiosurgeryReproducibility of ResultsRobotic Surgical ProceduresCyberKnifedelivery quality assurancedose predictionQA

Identifiers

PMID27811201
PMCPMC5440860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.