Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35113342›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2022

Current status of intra-cranial stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery in Australia and New Zealand: key considerations from a workshop and surveys.

Lauren Pudsey, Annette Haworth, Paul White, Zoe Moutrie, Benjamin Jonker, Matthew Foote, Joel Poder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of HyperArc™ using film and portal dosimetry quality assurance.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Lauren PudseyCentre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Annette HaworthInstitute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Paul WhiteNelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Zoe MoutrieDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mater Hospital, GenesisCare, Crows Nest, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Benjamin JonkerRPA Institute of Academic Surgery, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Matthew FooteUniversity of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, ICON Cancer Care Queensland, Southport, Australia.
Joel PoderCentre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia. Joel.Poder@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3018-6750

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, there has been increased interest worldwide in the use of conventional linear accelerator (linac)-based systems for delivery of stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) contrasting with historical delivery in specialised clinics with dedicated equipment. In order to gain an understanding and define the current status of SRS/SRT delivery in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) we conducted surveys and provided a single-day workshop. Prior to the workshop ANZ medical physicists were invited to complete two surveys: a departmental survey regarding SRS/SRT practises and equipment; and an individual survey regarding opinions on current and future SRS/SRT practices. At the workshop conclusion, attendees completed a second opinion-based survey. Workshop discussion and survey data were utilised to identify areas of consensus, and areas where a community consensus was unclear. The workshop was held on the 8th Sept 2020 virtually due to pandemic-related travel restrictions and was attended by 238 radiation oncology medical physicists from 39 departments. The departmental survey received 32 responses; a further 89 and 142 responses were received to the pre-workshop and post-workshop surveys respectively. Workshop discussion indicated a consensus that for a department to offer an SRS/SRT service, a minimum case load should be considered depending on availability of training, peer-review, resources and equipment. It was suggested this service may be limited to brain metastases only, with less common indications reserved for departments with comprehensive SRS/SRT programs. Whilst most centres showed consensus with treatment delivery techniques and image guidance, opinions varied on the minimum target diameter and treatment margin that should be applied.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsRadiosurgeryAustraliaCraniotomyHumansNew ZealandAustraliaNew ZealandStereotactic radiosurgeryStereotactic radiotherapySurvey

Identifiers

PMID35113342
PMCPMC8901507

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.