ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Improving accuracy for stereotactic body radiotherapy treatments of spinal metastases.
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 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.
- Synthetic CT generation from CBCT using deep learning for adaptive radiotherapy in prostate cancer.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Article
- Treatment planning of VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT delivery techniques for single fraction spine SBRT: An intercomparative dosimetric analysis and phantom-based quality assurance measurements.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Precision Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Spinal Tumors: Mechanism, Efficacy, and Issues.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Distributive quality assurance and delivery of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy treatments amongst beam matched linear accelerators: A feasibility study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUse of SBRT techniques is now a relatively common recourse for spinal metastases due to good local control rates and durable pain control. However, the technique has not yet reached maturity for gantry-based systems, so work is still required in finding planning approaches that produce optimum conformity as well as delivery for the slew of treatment planning systems and treatment machines.
methodsA set of 32 SBRT spine treatment plans based on four vertebral sites, varying in modality and number of control points, were created in Pinnacle. These plans were assessed according to complexity metrics and planning objectives as well as undergoing treatment delivery QA on an Elekta VersaHD through ion chamber measurement, ArcCheck, film-dose map comparison and MLC log-file reconstruction via PerFraction.
resultsAll methods of QA demonstrated statistically significant agreement with each other (r = 0.63, P < 0.001). Plan complexity and delivery accuracy were found to be independent of MUs (r = 0.22, P > 0.05) but improved with the number of control points (r = 0.46, P < 0.03); with use of 90 control points producing the most complex and least accurate plans. The fraction of small apertures used in treatment had no impact on plan quality or accuracy (r = 0.29, P > 0.05) but rather more complexly modulated plans showed poorer results due to MLC leaf position inaccuracies. Plans utilizing 180 and 240 control points produced optimal plan coverage with similar complexity metrics to each other. However, plans with 240 control points demonstrated slightly better delivery accuracy, with fewer MLC leaf position discrepancies.
conclusionIn contrast to other studies, MU had no effect on delivery accuracy, with the most impactful parameter at the disposal of the planner being the number of control points utilized.
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.