ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Comparison of dosimetric impact of intra-fractional setup discrepancy between multiple- and single-isocenter approaches in linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy of multiple brain metastases.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Dual optimization in single-isocenter radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: a dosimetric planning study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Optimizing anisotropic margins in single-isocenter multiple brain metastases radiosurgery using regressor strategies: A multi-institutional validation study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Comparison of single- and multi-isocenter planning with Dynamic WaveArc for multiple brain metastases.Journal of radiation research · 2025Article
- Analysis of the impact of rotation error on PTV margins in multiple brain metastases fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy based on single-isocenter multi-target technique.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of setup errors on the robustness of linac-based single-isocenter coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT plans for multiple brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Machine Performance Checks as an Alternative to Winston-Lutz Quality Assurance Testing in the TrueBeam Linear Accelerator with HyperArc.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Going from 3D/3D to 2D/3D registration for noncoplanar setup verification in intracranial single-isocenter multiple-target hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy: comparison between kilo-voltage/mega-voltage image pairs and noncoplanar cone-beam computed tomography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Patient-Specific Quality Assurance in Single Isocenter Multitarget Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Brain Metastases Using Octavius 4D for Flattening Filter Free Beams.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Comparison of dosimetric parameters and robustness for rotational errors in fractionated stereotactic irradiation using automated noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with brain metastases: single- versus multi-isocentric technique.Radiological physics and technology · 2023Article
- Comparison of dosimetric impact of intra-fractional setup discrepancy between multiple- and single-isocenter approaches in linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy of multiple brain metastases.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTreatment of multiple brain metastases by linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) can employ either a multiple-isocenter (MI) or single-isocenter (SI) approach. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the dosimetric results of MI and SI approaches and compare the impacts of intra-fractional setup discrepancies on the robustness of respective approaches using isocenter shifts, whether the same magnitude of translational and rotational effects could lead to a significant difference between the two approaches.
methodsTwenty-two patients with multiple brain metastases treated by linac-based SRT were recruited. Treatment plans were computed with both the MI and SI approaches. For the MI approach, the isocenter was located at the geometric center of each planning target volumes (PTVs), whereas the isocenter of the SI approach was located midway between the PTV centroids. To simulate the intra-fractional errors, isocenter displacements including translational and rotational shifts were hypothetically applied. Apart from the dosimetric outcomes of the two approaches, the impact of the isocenter shifts on PTVs and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded in terms of the differences (δ) in dose parameters relative to the reference plan and was then compared between the MI and SI approaches.
resultsBoth MI and SI plans met the plan acceptance criteria. The mean Paddick conformity index (Paddick CI) and D
conclusionBoth MI and SI approaches could produce clinically acceptable plans. However, isocenter shifts brought dosimetric impacts to both MI and SI approaches and the effects increased with the increase of the shift magnitude. Although similar impacts were shown in plans of both approaches after translational isocenter shift, SI plans were relatively more vulnerable than MI plans to rotational shifts.
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.