ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2023
Dosimetric evaluation of adult and paediatric brain tumours planned using mask-based cobalt-60 fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy compared to linear accelerator-based volumetric modulated arc therapy.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric comparison of gamma knife and linear accelerator (VMAT and IMRT) plans of SBRT of Lung tumours.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Is proton beam therapy always better than photon irradiation? Lessons from two cases.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe conducted a study to evaluate the dosimetric feasibility of mask-based cobalt-60 fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (mcfSRT) with the Leksell Gamma Knife® Icon™ device.
methodsEleven patients with intracranial tumours were selected for this dosimetry study. These patients, previously treated with volumetric arc therapy (VMAT), were re-planned using mcfSRT. Target volume coverage, conformity/gradient indices, doses to organs at risk and treatment times were compared between the mcfSRT and VMAT plans. Two-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare differences between the two plans.
resultsThe V95 for PTV was similar between fractionated mcfSRT and VMAT (P = 0.47). The conformity index and gradient indices were 0.9 and 3.3, respectively, for mcfSRT compared to 0.7 and 4.2, respectively, for VMAT (P < 0.001 and 0.004, respectively). The radiation exposure to normal brain was lower for mcfSRT across V10, V25 and V50 compared with VMAT (P = 0.007, <0.001 and <0.001, respectively). The median D0.1cc for optic nerve and chiasm as well as the median D50 to the hippocampi were lower for mcfSRT compared to VMAT. Median beam-on time for mcfSRT was 9.7 min per fraction, compared to 0.9 min for VMAT (P = 0.002).
conclusionmcfSRT plans achieve equivalent target volume coverage, improved conformity and gradient indices, and reduced radiation doses to organs at risk as compared with VMAT plans. These results suggest superior dosimetric parameters for mcfSRT plans and can form the basis for future prospective studies.
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.