Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29657896›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiosurgery and SBRT2018

A comparison of the convolution and TMR10 treatment planning algorithms for Gamma Knife

Peter Fallows, Gavin Wright, Natalie Harrold, Peter Bownes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Peter FallowsLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Gavin WrightLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Natalie HarroldLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Peter BownesLeeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo compare the accuracies of the convolution and TMR10 Gamma Knife treatment planning algorithms, and assess the impact upon clinical practice of implementing convolution-based treatment planning.

methodsDoses calculated by both algorithms were compared against ionisation chamber measurements in homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Relative dose distributions calculated by both algorithms were compared against film-derived 2D isodose plots in a heterogeneous phantom, with distance-to-agreement (DTA) measured at the 80%, 50% and 20% isodose levels. A retrospective planning study compared 19 clinically acceptable metastasis convolution plans against TMR10 plans with matched shot times, allowing novel comparison of true dosimetric parameters rather than total beam-on-time. Gamma analysis and dose-difference analysis were performed on each pair of dose distributions.

resultsBoth algorithms matched point dose measurement within ±1.1% in homogeneous conditions. Convolution provided superior point-dose accuracy in the heterogeneous phantom (-1.1% v 4.0%), with no discernible differences in relative dose distribution accuracy. In our study convolution-calculated plans yielded D

conclusionsConvolution provides superior accuracy versus TMR10 in heterogeneous conditions. Implementing convolution would result in increased target doses therefore its implementation may require a revaluation of prescription doses.

Indexed as

convolutionGamma Knifestereotactic radiosurgeryTMR10treatment planning

Identifiers

PMID29657896
PMCPMC5893456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.