ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Evaluating the impact of prescription isodose line on plan quality using Gamma Knife inverse planning.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the impact of prescription isodose line on plan quality using Gamma Knife inverse planning.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of selection of prescription isodose line (IDL) on plan quality has not been well evaluated during inverse planning (IP). In this study, a total of 180 IP plans at five levels of IDL were generated for 30 brain metastases (BMs). For each BM, one round of IP was performed with typical IP settings, followed by a quick fine-tuning to ensure the same target coverage and comparable conformality index. The impact of the IDL on the quality metrics (selectivity, gradient index [GI], and treatment time) was evaluated. The decrease of selectivity and increase of GI meant inferior target dose conformality and more dose spillage. Additionally, a metric directly correlated to the treatment time was proposed. For all cases, the mean GI decreased monotonically as IDL decreased from 70% to 30%, and the decreasing rate was significantly different based on tumor size. The mean selectivity and number of shots decreased monotonically as IDL decreased for all the tumors. From 70% to 30% IDL, the decreasing rate of the mean selectivity was 2.8% (p = 0.020), 7.7% (p = 0.005), and 15.4% (p = 0.020) and that of the number of shots was 75.4% (p = 0.001), 73.2% (p = 0.001), and 50.7% (p = 0.009), for the large, medium, and small tumors, respectively. For the medium and small tumor groups, the mean treatment time increased monotonically when IDLs decreased (increasing rate was 80.0% [p = 0.002] for medium tumors [p = 0.001] and 130.8% [p = 0.001] for small tumors from 70% to 30%). For the large tumors, the mean treatment time was the shortest at 50% IDL (59.0 min) and higher at 70% (65.9 min) and 30% (71.9 min). Overall, the GammaPlan chose smaller sectors for plans with lower IDLs except for the large size group.
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.