ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Comparison of four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: Dosimetric and efficiency analysis.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved outcomes of cyberknife stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal metastases: a retrospective study of sixty-one cases in one single center.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Article
- The Incidence and Influencing Factors of Sleep Disorders in Cyber Knife Patients during Treatment.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2024Article
- Comparison of Ray Tracing and Monte Carlo Calculation Algorithms for Spine Lesions Treated With CyberKnife.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Combination of stereotactic radiotherapy and targeted therapy: patterns-of-care survey in German-speaking countries.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2019Article
- Less Time Is Less Motion: Analysis of Practical Efficiencies Gained With a Modified Workflow Integrating Planar kV Midimaging With CBCT for Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Repetitive Painting (REPEAT) Irradiation in Stereotactic Radiotherapy Using Helical Tomotherapy.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to compare the dosimetric differences between four techniques for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT): CyberKnife (CK), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with dynamic jaws (HT-D) and fixed jaws (HT-F). MATERIALS/
methodsData from 10 patients were utilized. All patients were planned for 24 Gy in two fractions, with the primary objectives being: (a) restricting the maximum dose to the cord to ≤ 17 Gy and/or cauda equina to ≤ 20 Gy, and (b) to maximize the clinical target volume (CTV) to receive the prescribed dose. Treatment plans were generated by separate dosimetrists and then compared using velocity AI. Parameters of comparison include target volume coverage, conformity index (CI), gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), treatment time (TT) per fraction, and monitor units (MU) per fraction.
resultsPTV D2 and D5 were significantly higher for CK compared to VMAT, HT-F, and HT-D (P < 0.001). The average volume of CTV receiving the prescription dose (CTV D95) was significantly less for VMAT compared to CK, HT-F and HT-D (P = 0.036). CI improved for CK (0.69), HT-F (0.66), and HT-D (0.67) compared to VMAT (0.52) (P = 0.013). CK (41.86) had the largest HI compared to VMAT (26.99), HT-F (20.69), and HT-D (21.17) (P < 0.001). GI was significantly less for CK (3.96) compared to VMAT (6.76) (P = 0.001). Likewise, CK (62.4 min, 14059 MU) had the longest treatment time and MU per fraction compared to VMAT (8.5 min, 9764 MU), HT-F (13 min, 10822 MU), and HT-D (13.5 min, 11418 MU) (P < 0.001).
conclusionBoth CK and HT plans achieved conformal target coverage while respecting cord tolerance. Dose heterogeneity was significantly larger in CK. VMAT required the least treatment time and MU output, but had the least steep GI, CI, and target coverage.
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.