ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019
Gamma Knife
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frameless gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery for over two hundred vestibular schwannoma patients - a single institution experience.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimizing Gamma Knife radiosurgery: Analysis of gains achieved through upgradation of technology.Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT · 2025Article
- Avoiding a Collision in Gamma Knife Radiosurgery : A Modified Mask Fixation Method.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2023Article
- Article
- Discrepancies between frame- and CBCT-based stereotactic space definition on the Gamma Knife Icon.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Navigation of frameless fixation for gamma knife radiosurgery using fixed augmented reality.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Characterization and commissioning of a Leksell Gamma Knife ICON system for framed and frameless stereotactic radiosurgery.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Utilization of CBCT to improve the delivery accuracy of Gamma Knife radiosurgery with G-frame.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Use of GammaPlan convolution algorithm for dose calculation on CT and cone-beam CT images.Radiation oncology journal · 2021Article
- Assessment of unintended shifts during frame-based stereotactic radiosurgery using cone beam computed tomography image guidance.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2020Article
- Plan Assessment Metrics for Dose Painting in Stereotactic Radiosurgery.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Computed Tomography Simulation for Gamma Knife Radiosurgery: Impact on Target Coverage.Journal of medical physicsArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectThe purpose of this study was to compare two methods of stereotactic localization in Gamma Knife treatment planning: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) or fiducial. While the fiducial method is the traditional method of localization, CBCT is now available for use with the Gamma Knife Icon. This study seeks to determine whether a difference exists between the two methods and then whether one is better than the other regarding accuracy and workflow optimization.
methodsCone beam computed tomography was used to define stereotactic space around the Elekta Film Pinprick phantom and then treated with film in place. The same phantom was offset known amounts from center and then imaged with CBCT and registered with the reference CBCT image to determine if measured offsets matched those known. Ten frameless and 10 frame-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to CBCT patient fusions were retrospectively evaluated using the TG-132 TRE method. The stereotactic coordinates defined by CBCT and traditional fiducials were compared on the Elekta 8 cm Ball phantom, an anthropomorphic phantom, and actual patient data. Offsets were introduced to the anthropomorphic phantom in the stereotactic frame and CBCT's ability to detect those offsets was determined.
resultsCone beam computed tomography defines stereotactic space well within the established limits of the mechanical alignment system. The CBCT to CBCT registration can detect offsets accurately to within 0.1 mm and 0.5°. In all cases, some disagreement existed between fiducial localization and that of CBCT which in some cases was small, but also was as high as 0.43 mm in the phantom domain and as much as 1.54 mm in actual patients.
conclusionCone beam computed tomography demonstrates consistent accuracy in defining stereotactic space. Since both localization methods do not agree with each other consistently, the more reliable method must be identified. Cone beam computed tomography can accurately determine offsets occurring within stereotactic space that would be nondiscernible utilizing the fiducial method and seems to be more reliable. Using CBCT localization offers the opportunity to streamline workflow both from a patient and clinic perspective and also shows patient position immediately prior to treatment.
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.