Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34540686›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Dosimetric Comparison, Treatment Efficiency Estimation, and Biological Evaluation of Popular Stereotactic Radiosurgery Options in Treating Single Small Brain Metastasis.

Yanhua Duan, Hongbin Cao, Boheng Wu, Yinghui Wu, Dong Liu, Lijun Zhou, Aihui Feng, Hao Wang, Hua Chen, Hengle Gu and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Yanhua DuanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hongbin CaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Boheng WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yinghui WuNuclear Protective Treatment Department of Radiation, Navy Specialty Medical Center, Shanghai, China.
Dong LiuVarian Medical Systems, Inc., Beijing, China.
Lijun ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China.
Aihui FengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hao WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hua ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hengle GuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yan ShaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Ying HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yang LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Kui MaVarian Medical Systems, Inc., Beijing, China.
Xiaolong FuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hong FuDepartment of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Qing KongInstitute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Zhiyong XuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNEducation University of Hong Kong · HKFudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNInstitute of Modern Physics · CNPLA Navy General Hospital · CNShanghai Chest Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to show the advantages of each stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) treatment option for single small brain metastasis among Gamma Knife (GK), Cone-based VMAT (Cone-VMAT), and MLC-based CRT (MLC-CRT) plans. MATERIALS AND

methodsGK, Cone-VMAT, and MLC-CRT SRS plans were retrospectively generated for 11 patients with single small brain metastasis whose volume of gross tumor volume (GTV) ranged from 0.18 to 0.76 cc (median volume 0.60 cc). Dosimetric parameters, treatment efficiency, and biological parameters of the three techniques were compared and evaluated. The metric variation with the planning target volume (PTV) was also studied.

resultsThe conformity index (CI) was similar in GK and MLC-CRT plans, higher than Cone-VMAT. Cone-VMAT achieved comparable volume covered by 12 Gy (V12) and gradient index (GI) as GK, lower than MLC-CRT. The heterogeneity index (HI) of GK, Cone-VMAT, and MLC-CRT decreased sequentially. GK gave the lowest volume covered by 3 Gy (V3) and 6 Gy (V6), while MLC-CRT got the highest. The beam-on time and treatment time of GK, Cone-VMAT, and MLC-CRT decreased in turn. Tumor control probability (TCP) of all three SRS plans was greater than 98%, and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of all organs at risk (OARs) was below 0.01%. GK and Cone-VMAT resulted in superior TCP and NTCP of the normal brain tissue than MLC-CRT. The relative value of Cone-VMAT and GK for all metrics hardly changed with the target volume. Except for the unchanged HI and TCP, the other results of MLC-CRT with respect to GK improved as the target volume increased. MLC-CRT could produce higher CI than GK and Cone-VMAT when the target volume increased above 2 and 1.44 cc, respectively.

conclusionFor single small brain metastases, Cone-VMAT may be used as an alternative to GK-free centers. In addition to the advantage of short treatment time, MLC-CRT showed superiority in CI as the target volume increased. Treatment centers can choose appropriate SRS technique on a case-by-case basis according to institutional conditions and patients' individual needs.

Indexed as

biological evaluationbrain metastasisconeCRTGamma KnifeSRS

Identifiers

PMID34540686
PMCPMC8447903
OpenAlexW3188627700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.