ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2017
Do we need a new CT scan for retreatment of intracranial SRS patients?
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2017. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine if the treatment planning computed tomography scan (CT) from an initial intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment can be used for repeat courses of SRS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five patients with 40 brain metastases that received multiple courses of SRS were retrospectively studied. Magnetic resonance scans from repeat SRS (rMR) courses were registered to CT scans from the initial SRS (iCT) and repeat SRS (rCT). The CT scans were then registered to find the displacement of the rMR between iCT and rCT registrations. The distance from each target to proximal skull surface was measured in 16 directions on each CT scan after registration. The mutual information (MI) coefficients from the registration process were used to evaluate image set similarity. Targets and plans from the rCTs were transferred to the iCTs, and doses were recalculated on the iCT for repeat plans. The two dose distributions were compared through 3D gamma analysis.
resultsThe magnitude of the mean linear translations from the MR registrations was 0.6 ± 0.3 mm. The mean differences in distance from target to skull on a per target basis were 0.3 ± 0.2 mm. The MI was 0.582 ± 0.042. Registration between a comparison group of 30 CT scans that had the same data resampled and 30 scans that were intercompared with different patients gave MI = 0.721 ± 0.055 and MI = 0.359 ± 0.031, respectively. The mean gamma passing rates were 0.997 ± 0.007 for 1 mm/1% criteria.
conclusionsThe rMR can be aligned to the iCT to accurately define targets. The skull shows minimal change between scans so the iCT can be used for set-up at repeat treatments. The dosimetry provided by the iCT dose calculation is adequate for repeat SRS. Treatment based on iCT is feasible.
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.