ArticleJournal of radiosurgery and SBRT2020
Geometric and dosimetric effects of image co-registration workflows for Gamma Knife frameless radiosurgery.
Article in Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Image-to-Patient Registration in Computer-Assisted Surgery of Head and Neck: State-of-the-Art, Perspectives, and Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Gamma Knife® Icon™ CBCT facilitates frameless radiosurgery. In the vendor-recommended workflow, MRI is co-registered directly to CBCT for planning. Alternatively, MRI is co-registered to a diagnostic CT, which is then co-registered to CBCT. Our objective is to evaluate if this additional CT is necessary for more accurate registrations. Nine small spherical targets were generated onto 14 patient data-sets. Single-shot treatment plans were created. Geometric and dosimetric differences between the two workflows were determined. Mean target displacement was 0.5±0.3mm; average PTV coverage loss was 4.3±5.0%. For 19 clinical targets in 14 patients, the mean displacement and coverage change was 0.6±0.4mm and 1.3±1.6%. Eleven surrogate landmarks were contoured on a phantom MRI and registered to the CBCT using both workflows. The registration uncertainty was 0.50±0.65mm and 0.32±0.47mm for the MRI-CT-CBCT and MRI-CBCT respectively. As neither workflow was significantly more accurate, the additional CT is unnecessary for most cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32802578PMC7406343What 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.