ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Comparison of Two Cyberknife Planning Approaches for Multiple Brain Metastases.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the delivery efficiency, plan quality, and planned treatment volume (PTV) and normal brain dosimetry between different Cyberknife planning approaches for multiple brain metastases (MBM), and to evaluate the effects of the number of collimators on the related parameters.
methodsThe study included 18 cases of MBM. The Cyberknife treatment plans were classified as Separate or Combined. For the Separate plan, each lesion was targeted by the collimator auto-selection method (Conformality 2/3 collimators). For the Combined plan, a PTV including all PTVs was targeted by the collimators. Monitor units (MUs), number of nodes and beams, estimated fraction treatment time (EFTT), new conformity index (nCI), dose gradient index (GI), homogeneity index (HI), PTV minimum/maximum dose (D
resultsCompared to the Combined plan, the Separate plan had fewer nodes and beams, shorter EFTT, smaller PTV D
conclusionBoth approaches met the requirements for SRS/HFSRT. We found that Separate plans improved treatment efficiency and normal tissue dosimetry.
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.