ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Integrating CVH and LVH metrics into an optimization strategy for the selection of Iris collimator for Cyberknife Xsight lung tracking treatment.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. 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.
- Investigating the impact of non-standard positioning on the accuracy of skull tracking algorithms using dual-panel imaging systems.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Two Cyberknife Planning Approaches for Multiple Brain Metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe conducted this study to construct a target coverage-volume histogram (CVH) and leakage-volume histogram (LVH) metrics and optimization strategy for the selection of the Iris collimator in Cyberknife Xsight lung tracking treatment through a retrospective analysis of target structures and clinical data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CVH and LVH metrics were retrospectively analyzed for 37 lung cancer patients. CVH and LVH were the same as dose-volume histogram (DVH), but with a coverage and leakage replacing dose. For each patient, Iris collimator was optimized and selected based on CVH and LVH metrics. The CVH and LVH metrics were then compared to ascertain differences in 95% (C95) or 90% (C90) of the target coverage thresholds. The planning target volume (PTV) C95 and C90 coverage, absolute mean leakage value, leakage/coverage ratio, selected collimator diameter (Φ), Φ/length of the long axis of PTV (A
resultsFor each patient, the PTV C95 coverage (70.45 vs 63.19) and C90 coverage (77.25 vs 69.96) were higher in the C95 coverage threshold group compared to the C90 coverage threshold group. The leakage/coverage ratio (0.56 vs 0.69) and absolute mean leakage value (0.56 vs 0.61) were lower in C90 coverage threshold group than in C95 coverage threshold group. The Spearmen correlation test showed the Φ/A
conclusionThe CVH and LVH analysis is able to quantitatively evaluate the tradeoff between target coverage and normal tissue sparing.
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.