Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33294990›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2021

Accuracy of dose-volume metric calculation for small-volume radiosurgery targets.

Dennis N Stanley, Elizabeth L Covington, Haisong Liu, Ara N Alexandrian, Rex A Cardan, Daniel S Bridges, Evan M Thomas, John B Fiveash, Richard A Popple

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Dennis N StanleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Elizabeth L CovingtonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Haisong LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ara N AlexandrianDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Rex A CardanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Daniel S BridgesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Evan M ThomasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
John B FiveashDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Richard A PoppleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFor stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), accurate evaluation of dose-volume metrics for small structures is necessary. The purpose of this study was to compare the DVH metric capabilities of five commercially available SRS DVH analysis tools (Eclipse, Elements, Raystation, MIM, and Velocity).

methodsDICOM RTdose and RTstructure set files created using MATLAB were imported and evaluated in each of the tools. Each structure set consisted of 50 randomly placed spherical targets. The dose distributions were created on a 1-mm grid using an analytic model such that the dose-volume metrics of the spheres were known. Structure sets were created for 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 mm diameter spheres. The reported structure volume, V100% [cc], and V50% [cc], and the RTOG conformity index and Paddick Gradient Index, were compared with the analytical values.

resultsThe average difference and range across all evaluated target sizes for the reported structure volume was - 4.73%[-33.2,0.2], 0.11%[-10.9, 9.5], -0.39%[-12.1, 7.0], -2.24%[-21.0, 1.3], and 1.15%[-15.1,0.8], for TPS-A through TPS-E, respectively. The average difference and range for the V100%[cc] (V20Gy[cc]) was - 0.4[-24.5,9.8], -2.73[-23.6, 1.1], -3.01[-23.6, 0.6], -3.79[-27.3, 1.3], and 0.26[-6.1,2.6] for TPS-A through TPS-E, respectively. For V50%[cc](V10Gy[cc]) in TPS-A through TPS-E the average and ranger were - 0.05[-0.8,0.4], -0.18[-1.2, 0.5], -0.44[-1.4, 0.3], -0.26[-1.8, 2.6], and 0.09[-1.4,2.7].

conclusionThis study expanded on the previously published literature to quantitatively compare the DVH analysis capabilities of software commonly used for SRS plan evaluation and provides freely available and downloadable analytically derived set of ground truth DICOM dose and structure files for the use of radiotherapy clinics. The differences between systems highlight the need for standardization and/or transparency between systems, especially when evaluating plan quality for multi-institutional clinical trials.

Indexed as

RadiosurgeryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSoftwarecommercial systemsdose volume differencesDVH analysisSRS

Identifiers

PMID33294990
PMCPMC8248418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.