ArticleJournal of radiosurgery and SBRT2017
Quantifying the effects of positional uncertainties and estimating margins for Gamma-Knife
Article in Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Assessment of the dosimetric impact of intra-fraction motion during frameless treatment delivery on GammaKnife® Icon™.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2022Article
- Redistributing Central Target Dose Hot Spots for Hypofractionated Radiosurgery of Large Brain Tumors: A Proof-of-Principle Study.Acta neurochirurgica. Supplement · 2021Article
- Intra-fraction motion gating during frameless Gamma KnifeJournal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBesides conventional single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), the newer Gamma Knife® (Elekta Instruments, AB, Sweden) (GK) models, Perfexion™ and Icon™, also allow the option of hypofractionated SRS, to widen the treatment range, reduce toxicity and provide flexibility. With fractionation, set-up uncertainties are introduced to the treatment. The question of what margin is required to cover set-up uncertainties arises. In this work, the characteristics of positional uncertainties and margins required to ensure coverage are evaluated. An alternative strategy on how to deal with set-up errors is suggested. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive large single metastases have been considered to simulate the dosimetric effects of set-up uncertainties. Since random error would not create a representative average for three or five fractions a "worst case scenario" with maximal displacement in different directions has been evaluated. Displacements of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 mm have been considered. Three fraction treatments were simulated with displacements in X, Y and Z directions (3F
resultsTwo fractions displaced up to ±2 mm in opposing directions almost cancel each other out. Minimum dose was reduced by 10% (3F
conclusionsFor fractionated GK treatment of large brain metastases prescribing to the 50% isodose minimizes the effect of random error.For conventional single fraction SRS, the effect of positional uncertainty is always systematic. However, for fractionated treatments, positional uncertainty can be separated into random and systematic components, where random displacements in opposing directions at least partially cancel each other out and thus reduce the overall systematic effect (i.e. from the residual systematic uncertainty). Therefore fractionated schemes with more fractions are preferable from the point of view of accounting for positional uncertainties. If the random and systematic uncertainties can be assessed and determined separately by imaging, then the residual systematic value can be corrected for the remaining fractions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29296452PMC5658823W3015123724What 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.