ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
A dosimetric analysis of a spine SBRT specific treatment planning system.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Commissioning and validation of a Monte Carlo algorithm for spine stereotactic radiosurgery.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Markerless motion tracking with simultaneous MV and kV imaging in spine SBRT treatment-a feasibility study.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Clinical Evaluation of an Auto-Segmentation Tool for Spine SBRT Treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Personalized Automation of Treatment Planning for Linac-Based Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Spine Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Full automation of spinal stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment planning using Varian Eclipse scripting.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Elements Spine SRS Plan Quality for SRS and SBRT Treatment of Spine Metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Precision Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Spinal Tumors: Mechanism, Efficacy, and Issues.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Historical Progress of Stereotactic Radiation Surgery.Journal of medical physicsReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Brainlab Elements treatment planning system utilizes distinct modules for treatment planning specific to stereotactic treatment sites including single or multiple brain lesions as well as spine. This work investigates the hypothesis that an optimization tailored specifically to spine can in fact create dosimetrically superior plans to those created in more general use treatment planning systems (TPS).
methodsTen spine patients at our institution were replanned in Brainlab Elements, Phillips Pinnacle
resultsAll TPS produced clinically acceptable plans. The sharpest dose gradient was achieved with Elements (mean 3.3 ± 0.2 mm). This resulted in lowest spinal cord maximum point doses (6.6 ± 1.0 Gy). Gradient indices were also the smallest for Elements (3.6 ± 0.5). Further improvement in gradient index and spinal cord sparing were not performed due to the subsequent violation of the PTV D5% < 25 Gy constraint or the loss of conformity due to the loss of coverage at the PTV-spinal canal interface.
conclusionsBrainlab Elements planning which relies on arc duplication to specifically optimize for spine anatomy did result in dosimetrically superior plans while holding prescription levels constant. While any planning system can improve upon specific dosimetric objectives, the simultaneous satisfaction of all constraints was best achieved with Brainlab Elements.
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.