Trial reportJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Validation of the clinical applicability of knowledge-based planning models in single-isocenter volumetric-modulated arc therapy for multiple brain metastases.
Trial report 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 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.
- Dosimetric potential of knowledge-based planning model trained with HyperArc plans for brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Single isocenter stereotactic irradiation for multiple brain metastases: current situation and prospects.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Therapy.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2022Article
- Machine learning for dose-volume histogram based clinical decision-making support system in radiation therapy plans for brain tumors.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo validate the clinical applicability of knowledge-based (KB) planning in single-isocenter volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for multiple brain metastases using the k-fold cross-validation (CV) method.
methodsThis study comprised 60 consecutive patients with multiple brain metastases treated with single-isocenter VMAT (28 Gy in five fractions). The patients were divided randomly into five groups (Groups 1-5). The data of Groups 1-4 were used as the training and validation dataset and those of Group 5 were used as the testing dataset. Four KB models were created from three of the training and validation datasets and then applied to the remaining Groups as the fourfold CV phase. As the testing phase, the final KB model was applied to Group 5 and the dose distributions were calculated with a single optimization process. The dose-volume indices (DVIs), modified Ian Paddick Conformity Index (mIPCI), modulation complexity scores for VMAT plans (MCSv), and the total number of monitor units (MUs) of the final KB plan were compared to those of the clinical plan (CL) using a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsIn the fourfold CV phase, no significant differences were observed in the DVIs among the four KB plans (KBPs). In the testing phase, the final KB plan was statistically equivalent to the CL, except for planning target volumes (PTVs) D
conclusionsWe demonstrated that a KB model in a single-isocenter VMAT for multiple brain metastases was equivalent in dose distribution, MCSv, and total number of MUs to a CL with a single optimization.
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.