ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency for CyberKnife.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of plan quality between two SRS systems for stereotactic irradiation in treating Vestibular Schwannoma.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric assessment of conventional and advanced algorithms in clinical stereotactic radiotherapy.Precision radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Stereotactic radiotherapy for metastatic brain tumors: A comparative analysis of dose distributions among VMAT, Helical TomoTherapy, CyberKnife, Gamma Knife, and ZAP-X.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Article
- First-in-Men Online Adaptive Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: Toward Ultrahypofractionation for High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence and optical image recognition techniques used in OneIso, an off-axis Winston-Lutz quality assurance phantom.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2024Article
- Dosimetric comparison of HyperArc and InCise MLC-based CyberKnife plans in treating single and multiple brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Results of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy With CyberKnife-M6 for Primary and Metastatic Lung Cancer.World journal of oncology · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of plan quality and delivery efficiency: ZAP-X vs. CyberKnife for brain metastases treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- A multi-institutional trial evaluating the use of an integrated quality assurance phantom for frameless single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Comparison of two optimization algorithms (VOLOJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Respiratory motion tracking of spine stereotactic radiotherapy in prone position.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Planning study: prone versus supine position for stereotactic body radiotherapy in prostate by CyberKnife.Journal of radiation research · 2023Article
- Technical feasibility of online adaptive stereotactic treatments in the abdomen on a robotic radiosurgery system.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Implementing and evaluating a high-resolution diode array for patient-specific quality assurance of robotic brain stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Stereotactic body radiotherapy optimization to reduce the risk of carotid blowout syndrome using normal tissue complication probability objectives.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Applying pytorch toolkit to plan optimization for circular cone based robotic radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- The new SRS/FSRT technique HyperArc for benign brain lesions: a dosimetric analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Stereotactic body radiotherapy using a hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: A dosimetric comparison between tomotherapy with the newly-developed tumor-tracking system and cyberknife.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Plan comparison of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy in spacer implant patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the recent CyberKnife treatment planning system (TPS) upgrade from Precision 1.0 to Precision 2.0, the new VOLO optimizer was released for plan optimization. The VOLO optimizer sought to overcome some of the limitations seen with the Sequential optimizer from previous TPS versions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer on treatment plan quality and clinical treatment efficiency as compared to the Sequential optimizer. Treatment plan quality was evaluated in four categories of patients: Brain Simple (BS), Brain Complex (BC), Spine Complex (SC), and Prostate (PC). A total of 60 treatment plans were compared using both the Sequential and VOLO optimizers with Iris and MLC collimation with the same clinical constraints. Metrics evaluated included estimated treatment time, monitor units (MUs) delivered, conformity index (CI), and gradient index (GI). Furthermore, the clinical impact of the VOLO optimizer was evaluated through statistical analysis of the patient population treated during the 4 months before (n = 297) and 4 months after (n = 285) VOLO introduction. Significant MU and time reductions were observed for all four categories planned. MU reduction ranged from -14% (BS Iris) to -52% (BC MLC), and time reduction ranged from -11% (BS Iris) to -22% (BC MLC). The statistical analysis of patient population before and after VOLO introduction for patients using 6D Skull tracking with fixed cone, 6D Skull tracking with Iris, and Xsight Spine tracking with Iris were -4.6%, -22.2%, and -17.8% for treatment time reduction, -1.1%, -22.0%, and -28.4% for beam reduction and -3.2%, -21.8%, and -28.1% for MU reduction, respectively. The VOLO optimizer maintains or improves the plan quality while decreases the plan complexity and improves treatment efficiency. We anticipate an increase in patient throughput with the introduction of the VOLO optimizer.
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.